Gro Markeset, Steen Rostam and

Oskar Klinghoffer
Guide for the use of stain-
less steel reinforcement in
concrete structures

Nordic Innovation Centre project – 04118:

«Corrosion resistant steel reinforcement in concrete
structures (NonCor)»

405 Project report 2006

BYGGFORSK
Norwegian Building Research Institute

Gro Markeset, Steen Rostam and

Oskar Klinghoffer
Guide for the use of stain-
less steel reinforcement in
concrete structures

Nordic Innovation Centre project – 04118:

«Corrosion resistant steel reinforcement in
concrete structures (NonCor)»

Project report 405 − 2006

Project report 405
Gro Markeset, Steen Rostam and Oskar Klinghoffer
Guide for the use of stainless steel reinforcement in
concrete structures
Nordic Innovation Centre project – 04118: «Corrosion resis-
tant steel reinforcement in concrete structures (NonCor)»

Keywords: Concrete structures, stainless steel reinforcement,

durability, service life design

ISSN 0801-6461
ISBN 82-536-0926-4

200 copies printed by

AIT AS e-dit
Content: 100 g Kymultra
Cover: 200 g Cyclus

© Copyright Norwegian Building Research Institute 2006

The material in this publication is covered by the provisions

of the Norwegian Copyright Act. Without any special agree-
ment with the Norwegian Building Research Institute, any
copying and making available of the material is only allowed
to the extent that this is permitted by law or allowed through
an agreement with Kopinor, the Reproduction Rights Organi-
sation for Norway.

Any use contrary to legislation or an agreement may lead to

a liability for damages and confiscation, and may be pun-
ished by fines or imprisonment.

Address: Forskningsveien 3 B
PO Box 124 Blindern
N-0314 OSLO
Tel: +47 22 96 55 55
Fax: +47 22 69 94 38 and +47 22 96 55 08

www.sintef.no/byggforsk
NonCor iii

Foreword
Premature deterioration of concrete buildings and infrastructure due to corrosion of reinforcement
is a severe challenge, both technically and economically. Repair-work on the public transportation
infrastructure are causing significant inconveniences and delays for both the industry and the
general public, and are now recognized as a substantial cost for the society.
In recent years there has been an increasing interest in applying stainless steel reinforcement in
concrete structures to combat the durability problems associated with chloride ingress. However,
the use of stainless steel reinforcement (SSR) has so far been limited mainly due to high costs and
lack of design guides and standards.
In 2004 a Scandinavian group was established to cope with these challenges and a Nordic
Innovation Centre project: “Corrosion resistant steel reinforcement in concrete structures
(NonCor)” was formed.
The present report; “Guide for the use of stainless steel reinforcement in concrete structures”, is the
final document of this project. The scope of this Guide is to increase the durability and service life
of concrete structures exposed to corrosive environments by focusing on two issues:
• Eliminating reinforcement corrosion by examining the core of the problem, i.e. the
reinforcement itself
• Overcoming the technical knowledge gap for application of stainless steel reinforcement in
concrete structures

The foreseen users of this Guide are:

• All parties involved in planning, design and construction of concrete structures to be
exposed to corrosive environments, - such as marine structures, coastal-near structures and
structures exposed to chloride based de-icing salts
• Owners and Clients who want to reduce or solve the corrosion problem for reinforced
concrete structures, in order to obtain a long service life with minimal maintenance
The participants in the Nordic Innovation Centre (NICe) project are:
Norwegian Building Research Institute (Project Manager)
Norwegian Defence Estates Agency *) P P

Norwegian Public Roads Administration *) P P

Veidekke ASA, Norway

Danish Road Directorate *) P P

COWI A/S, Denmark

Force Technology, Denmark
Arminox, Denmark
MT Højgaard a/s, Denmark
Swedish Road Administration *) P P

Strängbetong, Sweden
*) financing partners (in addition to NICe) and members of the Steering Committee
P P

Oslo, August 2006

Gro Markeset
Project Manager, NonCor
Norwegian Building Research Institute
iv NonCor
NonCor v

Table of contents

Foreword iii

1 Introduction 1
1.1 The corrosion problem 1
1.2 Scope 3

2 Service life design of concrete structures 5

2.1 General 5
2.2 Durability and service life 6
2.3 Service life design process 7

3 Classification and documentation of stainless steel 13

3.1 Definition 13
3.2 Classification and chemical composition of stainless steel 14
3.3 Documentation and application of stainless steel reinforcement 17

4 Corrosion properties of stainless steel reinforcement 21

4.1 Corrosion types 21
4.2 Resistance to chloride attack and carbonation 23
4.3 Surface finish of stainless steel reinforcement 26
4.4 Classification of corrosion resistance of stainless steel reinforcements 26
4.5 Resistance to galvanic corrosion 27
4.6 Corrosion resistance of welded stainless steel reinforcement 29

5 Mechanical and physical properties of stainless steel

reinforcement 31
5.1 Stress-strain relationships 31
5.2 Application at extreme temperatures 32
5.3 Fatigue 32
5.4 Physical properties 33

6 Designing and constructing with stainless steel reinforcement 35

6.1 General 35
6.2 Selection of stainless steel reinforcement grade 36
6.3 Concrete section design 37
6.4 Execution and after-treatment 40
6.5 Transport, storage and handling 40
6.6 Installation, welding and coupling 41
6.7 Use of cover meters 42
6.8 Other corrosion preventive measures 42
vi NonCor

7 Applications for stainless steel reinforcement 47

7.1 Selective application of stainless steel reinforcement 47
7.2 Repair works 48
7.3 Life cycle costing 49

8 Further investigations 53

9 Summary and conclusions 55

10 References 57
NonCor 1

1 Introduction
1.1 The corrosion problem
Premature deterioration of concrete buildings and infrastructure due to corrosion of
reinforcement is a severe challenge, both technically and economically. It has been estimated
that Western Europe spends 5 billion Euros yearly for repair of corroding concrete
infrastructures. Repair-work on the public transportation infrastructure are causing significant
inconveniences and delays for both the industry and the general public, and are now
recognized as a substantial cost for the society.
The main sources of chloride ingress stems from seawater splash (on marine based structures)
as well as from de-icing salts (on roads, bridges, parking decks and on external staircases and
access balconies in large condominiums).
Carbon steel reinforcement embedded in concrete will not normally corrode due to the
formation of a protective ion-oxide film, which passivates the steel in the strong alkaline
conditions of the concrete pore water. However, this passivity may be destroyed by chlorides
penetrating through the concrete, or due to carbonation, reaching the surface of the
reinforcement. Corrosion, which is an electrochemical process involving establishment of
corroding and passive sites on the steel surface, may then be initiated.
As a result of corrosion reaction, rust forms and occupies a volume of up to 6-7 times that of
the original metal, hence generating bursting forces. These forces might exceed the tensile
strength of concrete, causing cracking and spalling of the concrete leading to further corrosion
and loss of bond between the concrete and the steel. Hazardous situations might occur when
pieces of spalled concrete fall and threaten the user or passer-by, or when the structural
member looses cross-sectional area and thereby experiences increased stress on the remaining
section, which potentially could lead to structural failure.
Examples of damages caused by corrosion are illustrated in Figure 1-1 through Figure 1-4.

Figure 1-1: Corrosion damage Figure 1-2: Corrosion damage in car park deck
on bridge pier.
2 NonCor

Figure 1-3: Corrosion damage on marine Figure 1-4: Corrosion damage on New Jersey
structure type crash barrier

The means of addressing the corrosion problems have mainly followed one of five distinct
strategies:
• Developing very dense and strong types of concrete to protect the reinforcement
against ingress of corrosive substance, particularly chlorides, in combination with
sufficient concrete covers
• Inhibiting corrosion through passive protection (corrosion inhibitors) or through active
protection (cathodic protection/prevention)
• Developing coatings to the concrete surface or to the carbon reinforcement
(particularly epoxy or zinc)
• Develop non-metallic reinforcements (glass fibre, aramid fibre or carbon fibre)
• Developing specially alloyed steel types with higher chloride threshold values for
corrosion initiation
Replacing conventional carbon steel reinforcement with corrosion resistant steel reinforcement
or with non-metallic reinforcement has only received limited attention in the Nordic countries.
While non-metallic reinforcement (carbon-, aramid- or glass fibre) still is in a R&D phase,
corrosion resistant steel reinforcement in the form of stainless steel reinforcement (SSR) has
been readily available commercially for the last say 10 years. The use of SSR has so far been
limited mainly due to high costs and lack of design guides and standards.
A convincing documentation of the performance of stainless steel reinforcement in highly
chloride contaminated concrete may be found at Progresso in Mexico. Here you find still
operating, a 70 year old 2.2 km long concrete pier leading out into the Gulf of Mexico. This
pier was at construction reinforced with stainless steel reinforcing bars (quality 1.4301). No
corrosion has taken place within the structure, despite the harsh environment and poor quality
materials used in the construction see Figure 1-5. The chloride levels, at the surface of the
reinforcement were more than 20 times the traditionally assumed corrosion threshold level, see
Figure 1-6, /1/.
A newer, parallel pier was built in 1972. This structure perished after only 11 years of service
due to reinforcement corrosion of the ordinary carbon steel reinforcement used in this
structure. The remains of this structure may be seen in the foreground of Figure 1-7, and on
Figure 1-8.
NonCor 3

Figure 1-5: Typical picture of breakout Figure 1-6: Typical chloride profile with 1.92 %
exposing non-corroding SSR /1/ chloride-ion by weight of concrete at the level of
reinforcement /1/

Figure 1-7: The "new" shorter Progreso Pier Figure 1-8: Close-up of the land-based
built about 1972 and the old one behind /1/ remains of the "new" pier as seen on
Figure 1-7 /1/

1.2 Scope
Reinforcement corrosion remains the most serious cause of deterioration of concrete structures,
and thus reduced service life. The scope of this Guide is to increase the durability and service
life of concrete structures exposed to corrosive environments by focusing on two issues:
• Eliminating reinforcement corrosion by examining the core of the problem, i.e. the
reinforcement itself
• Overcoming the technical knowledge gap for application of stainless steel
reinforcement in concrete structures
The report aims to give some basic information regarding choice of stainless steel
reinforcements. In addition, the report provides the basis to understand the state-of-the-art
methodologies for service life design of reinforced concrete structures and how stainless steel
reinforcements should be applied within this concept.
4 NonCor

The foreseen users of this Guide are:

• All parties involved in planning, design and construction of large concrete structures to
be exposed to corrosive environments, such as marine structures, coastal-near
structures and structures exposed to chloride based de-icing salts
• Owners and Clients who want to reduce or solve the corrosion problem for reinforced
concrete structures, in order to obtain a long service life with minimal maintenance
It is assumed that the users of this Guide have a detailed knowledge of both the design and
durability aspects of concrete structures exposed to a corrosive environment. The users should
therefore be acquainted with the terminology used.
NonCor 5

2 Service life design of concrete structures

2.1 General
During recent years Owners of large structures - infrastructures constructions as well as
buildings - have focused increasingly on durability. This has repeatedly been expressed as a
requirement to a specific design service life ranging typically from 60 - 100 - 120 - 300 years.
A 60 years design service life was specified for the Bahrain Financial Harbour, Figure 2-1,
located in the most corrosive environment in the World. For the Great Belt Link, Denmark
(Tunnel and Bridges), Figure 2-2 the design service life requirement was 100 years. An
extraordinary long design service life of 300 years was specified for the Messina Strait Bridge,
Figure 2-3, with a world record span of 3000 meters.

Figure 2-1: Bahrain Financial

Harbour. Design service life is 60
years.

Figure 2-2: Great Belt East Bridge.

Design service life is 100 years.

Figure 2-3: Messina Strait Bridge. Design service life is 300 years. Main span in steel is
3000 m. (Model Photo).
6 NonCor

Because reinforcement corrosion remains the most serious cause of deterioration of concrete
structures, a particular focus on reducing - or solving - this corrosion problem becomes a key
issue for all designers and contractors of concrete structures. Therefore, this Guide starts with
this short section on “Service life design of concrete structures”. This fact is considered the
reference point for the subsequent detailed descriptions on the different aspects of adopting
stainless steel reinforcement.

2.2 Durability and service life

The fundamental conditions to be fulfilled in order to ensure durable structures with low
maintenance cost are the performance requirements stated by the Owner, when ordering a
structure through his Designer. Durability and service life related qualities need primarily to be
enforced by the Owner. He - or his representative - must therefore:
• define the quality he wants (i.e. the service life and the pre-conditions)
• check the quality received (QA, QC, on site supervision)
• maintain the structure - or have the structure maintained by the User - to ensure
satisfactory performance (foreseen Maintenance Management).
• pay for the quality he specifies as well as for the necessary running activities to
maintain the structure in satisfactory condition.
Durability is a non-quantifiable term and thereby not operational in design. Therefore the
concept of a service life - a number of years - has become the Owner's term to specify his
long-term functional requirements.
The design service life is assumed period for which a structure or part of it is to be used for its
intended purpose with anticipated maintenance but without major repair being necessary. In
practice there are three different types of service life relevant for structures, depending on the
type of performance being considered:
• Technical service life, the time in service until a defined unacceptable state of
deterioration is reached.
• Functional service life, the time in service until the structure becomes obsolete from a
functional performance point of view, due to changed requirements.
• Economic service life, the time in service until replacement of the structure is
economically more attractive than keeping the structure in service.
Only the technical service life and its interaction with the economic service life are relevant for
the design of new structures and for the residual service life evaluation of existing structures.
It should be realized that the end of service life is often in reality when a structure becomes
functionally obsolete, i.e. shall accommodate higher loads, larger free space under bridges,
changed functionality, etc. The structural design shall therefore ensure a technical service life
at least as long as the envisaged functional service life.
The design service life defined by the Owner shall be identified through recognizable and
verifiable criteria in order to constitute part of the design basis. The required service life shall
be supplemented by additional requirements or criteria to be operational, such as:
• The definition of the "end-of-service-life" ( i.e. definition of the relevant limit state)
• The type, detailing and frequency of future inspection and maintenance being
acceptable to the Owner
• The level of reliability of the service life design
NonCor 7

Examples of end-of-service-life situations are:

• Structural safety is dropping below acceptable limits;
• Serious material degradation, such as reinforcement corrosion due to chloride attack,
concrete disintegration due to alkali-aggregate reaction, etc. requires extensive or
costly maintenance or inconveniences to the Owner or user;
• Appearance becomes unacceptable;
• Functional requirements cannot be fulfilled, i.e. the structure becomes functionally
obsolete.
The development in time of nearly all types of deterioration mechanisms in concrete structures
may be modelled by the two-phase curve as shown in Figure 2-4:
• The initiation period, during which the transport and the build-up of aggressive
substance occur
(Carbonation, chloride penetration and sulphate accumulation are examples of such
mechanisms determining the duration of the initiation period)
• The propagation period, during which the active deterioration develops, often at a
high rate
(Reinforcement corrosion is one such important example of deterioration)
In order to adopt an operational approach to the service life design, the Designer may define a
target service life, which may deviate from the Owners design service life (or technical service
life). The typical example is
Initiation Propagation illustrated in Figure 2-4.

Age The Owner may accept some degree

of reinforcement corrosion leading to
a defined safety reduction or cracking
Taget service life and spalling, or discolouring of the
structure to represent his assumed end
Accept limit of service life.
Technical Service Life However, quantifying and verifying
this stage during the design is
difficult. Therefore, the Designer may
adopt the transition from the initiation
Damage period to the propagation stage, as
illustrated in Figure 2-4, to represent
Figure 2-4: Service life of concrete structures. A two-
the target service life adopted in the
phase modelling of deterioration /2/
design.

2.3 Service life design process

Through the service life design process the Designer shall take the following actions:
• Identify the specific physical actions and aggressive chemical substances, which may
be expected from the environment in question during the foreseen service life
• Design the geometrical form of the exposed parts of the structure to be robust in
resisting the ingress of the aggressive substance from the environment
• Select the type of reinforcement considered optimal in combination with the chosen
concrete and the detailing of the structure and the reinforcement layout
 8 NonCor

• Select the cement type and concrete quality which would be able to resist the possible
deleterious actions identified, provided the design, execution and assumed maintenance
is adapted accordingly
• Design the concrete cover and consider crack widths and crack orientations relative to
the type of reinforcement chosen

2.3.1 Design strategies

In fib Model Code for Service Life Design /3/ two basic design strategies has been adopted,
whereof the first introduces three levels of sophistication. In sum four options are available,
i.e.:
Strategy 1: Level 1: Full probabilistic approach (Option 1)
Level 2: Partial factor design approach (Option 2)
Level 3: Deemed to satisfy design approach (Option 3)
Strategy 2: Avoidance of deterioration design approach (Option 4)
• The “Full probabilistic design approach” (Strategy 1/Option 1) will be used only for
exceptional structures. This approach has specifically been adopted for tunnels (e.g.
The Dutch tunnels: Green Heart Tunnel and Western Schelde Tunnel, the Malmø City
Tunnel in Sweden, the Copenhagen Metro and Copenhagen Harbour installation
tunnel), and for bridges (e.g. the Busan George Fixed Link Bridges in Korea, the
Sutong Bridge in China and the Sitra Causeway Bridges in Bahrain). For all these
designs the probabilistic performance based durability and service life design,
DuraCrete/4/, has been adopted.
• The “Partial safety factor approach“ (Strategy 1/Option 2) is a deterministic approach
where the probabilistic nature of the problem (scatter of material resistance and
environmental load) is taken into account by partial safety factors.
• The “Deemed to satisfy design approach” (Strategy 1/Option 3) is comparable to the
approach which can found in the codes and standards of today.
• The “Avoidance of deterioration design approach” (Strategy 2/Option 4) introduces
the use of non-reactive materials, e.g. stainless steel reinforcement (SSR).
This Guide focuses on Strategy 2, “Avoidance of deterioration”, and is an expansion of this
strategy.

2.3.2 Life cycle costing

As service life design relates to the structure's performance over a long period of time it is
relevant not only to consider the initial construction costs, but also the operation and
maintenance costs over the expected design life of the structures. It is now recognized that for
many structures the cost, difficulty and operational disruption resulting from both planned and
unplanned maintenance and repair are significant burden to the owner of the structures as well
as to the users. For example, the user costs due to traffic delays are now being rated so high,
that this becomes the dominating basis for selecting the type and timing of maintenance and
repairs.
An optimal design strategy should be an economic optimization of the costs throughout the
T

whole life of the structure. In addition to actual financial costs (cost of the construction, repair
and maintenance etc), user benefits, environmental effects and other external effects should be
included in the economic analysis of the project. Such Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis
NonCor 9

evaluates whether the project is beneficial to society as a whole. An example of this approach
T

is given in Chapter 7.3.

2.3.3 Environmental aggressivity

In order to address the issue of time dependent deterioration of concrete structures during the
design, it is one of the key task and responsibilities of the designer to carefully evaluate
aggressivity of the environment that may cause premature deterioration. For instance, a
corrosion deterioration mechanism depends on aggressive substance typically chlorides
penetrating from the surrounding environment into the outer concrete layer of concrete (the
cover). This substance diffuses inward, towards the reinforcement, see Figure 2-5. When a
threshold value has been reached at the level of the reinforcement corrosion is initiated.
As guidance to determine the
environmental aggressivity, Eurocode 2
Carbonation CO2
(EN 1992-1-1 /7/ and reference to EN 206-
1 /8/) provides a valuable starting point.
Chloride Cl- The documents also highlight the need to
Penetration
O2
separate the aggressivity of the
Corrosion environment depending on whether it
Others
H2O
refers to reinforcement corrosion or
concrete material deterioration. For certain
Decisive Properties
- Quality of outer concrete Permeability projects where the Owner has set forward
- Concrete cover Porosity
Diffusion
service life requirements exceeding the
anticipated service life from national
Figure 2-5: Importance of the outer concrete layer codes, a project specific definition or
to protect the reinforcement /6/ identification of the factual aggressivity of
the environment has to be made.

2.3.4 Codes and standards

The design requirements to be fulfilled are stated in the national codes and standards. They
represent the minimum requirements regarding safety and serviceability acceptable to the
society.
Historically and for reasons of tradition codes and standards differ from country to country. So
far they introduce durability through substitute requirements such as type of cement, minimum
cement content, minimum concrete cover, maximum crack widths, but without any
requirement to the duration of the performance. As stated in fib Model Code for Service Life
Design /3/: “… descriptive rules of today’s standards are not based on physically and
chemically correct models but more on practical (at times bad) experience. In the future
currently applied rules urgently have to be calibrated against the full probabilistic
approach…”.
The current Swedish, Norwegian and Danish concrete design standards, SS 137010 /9/, NS
3473 /10/ and DS 411 /11/, all address the service life issue. NS 3473 has criteria for 50 years
and 100 years service life, the SS 137010 has criteria for 40, 80 and 120 years service life. DS
411 /11/ assumes a 50 years design life. The difference between the different target service
lives are partly represented only by variations in required minimum concrete cover and
maximum crack width, with the exception of SS 137010 /9/ where also the water/cement ratio
is included in cover requirement in relation to service life. However, it is in addition assumed
by all these standards that regular inspection and maintenance is performed - but without being
precise in defining details, timing and frequency of this maintenance.
The minimum requirements for cover thickness and maximum calculated characteristic crack
width in the existing national standards for design of concrete structures Norway (NO),
10 NonCor

Sweden (SE) and Denmark (DK), respectively, are listed in Table 2-1. It should be emphasized
that none of these standards introduce use of alternative reinforcement, e.g. stainless steel. If
SSR is used, both crack width requirements, cover requirements and maybe concrete quality
(permeability) could be relaxed.
A number of large public or semi-public owners or concessionaires have developed their own
design requirements as supplements to the general codes and standards. This is typically Road
and Rail Authorities and developers.
The Norwegian and Danish Design Rules for Roads and Bridges assume 100 years service life
for the main structural members. The Danish rules require in addition that the first 25 years
shall be without repair works. The Swedish Bridge Design Code /12/ provides concrete covers
for assumed services lives of 40, 80 or 120 years for given exposure classes and water/cement
ratios. It could be mentioned that the British code for bridges, BS 5400 /13/, claims to provide
120 years service life.

Table 2-1: Water/binder-ratio, minimum concrete cover thickness and maximum calculated
characteristic crack width for structures in aggressive environment (Chloride from seawater (XS1,
XS2, XS3) and de-icing salts (XD3) according to /8/)
Min. concrete cover Max crack
Exposure Water/binder (mm)1) width
Codes P P

classes ratio Design life Design Design (mm)

(DL) life (DL) life (DL)
20 years 50 years 100 years
NS 3473 0.45 - 40 50 0.3

0.3
0.45 15 25 30
SS (DL 50 years)
Moderate
(XS1) 137010 0.3
0.40 15 20 25
(DL 50 years)

DS 411 0.45 - 20 - 0.4

NS 3473 0.40 - 40 50 0,4

0.45 30 40 50

Aggressive SS 0.40 25 35 45
0.3
137010 (DL 50 years)
(XS2)
0.3
0.35 25 30 40
(DL 50 years)

DS 411 0.45 - 30 - 0.3

NS 3473 0.40 - 50 60 0.3

0.2
0.40 25 35 45
SS (DL 50 years)
Extra
Aggressive 137010 2) 0.2
0.35 25 30 40
P P

(XS3/XD3) (DL 50 years)

DS 411 0.45 - 40 - 0.2

1) Tolerance on cover: DK +5mm, NO +10 mm, SE +10 mm.

2) Only valid for chloride concentration in sea water lower than 0.4% (East coast). With higher
concentrations the cover is to be decided in the individual case.
NonCor 11

The Road authorities in the three Nordic countries have, however, tightened the requirements
to cover thickness and crack widths in order to increase the reliability of the 100 years service
life and reduce future maintenance and repair cost. In Norway where the climate and
environment is rather hash the cover requirements for tremie concrete casting for bridge
construction as well as in the tidal zone is 100 mm (tolerances +20 mm) and 60 mm (tolerances
+15mm) for the structure above the splash zone as well as in zones exposed to de-icing salts.
The concrete quality in the splash zone and in the coastal areas requires a water-binder ratio of
0.38. In Sweden and Denmark the requirements are somewhat lower.The Swedish Bridge Code
/12/ allows a reduction in concrete covers for structures in marine environment in West cost, if
stainless steel reinforcement is used. Further, it is required that the stainless steel reinforcement
is in accordance with BS 6744 /14/ number 1.4436 and 1.4462 with a proof stress of 500 MPa
12 NonCor
NonCor 13

3 Classification and documentation of stainless

steel
3.1 Definition
Stainless steels are chromium containing steel alloys. The minimum chromium content of the
standardized stainless steels is 10.5%. Steel with lower chromium content should not be termed
"stainless". Chromium is the main alloy which provides the steel with improved corrosion
resistance. This improved corrosion resistance can be seen in Figure 3-1 /15/.

Figure 3-1: Influence of chromium on the corrosion resistance of stainless steel/15/

The improved corrosion resistance is due to a thin chromium oxide film that is formed on the
steel surface and creates a so-called passive condition. It is important to realise that oxygen is
required for the oxide film to form. The passivity is a dynamic process which is influenced by
the surrounding environment, and especially temperature and humidity. The extremely thin
chromium oxide film is also self-repairing under the right conditions, which includes presence
of oxygen /16/, /17/.
Besides chromium, typical alloying elements are molybdenum, nickel and nitrogen. Nickel is
mostly alloyed to improve the formability and ductility of stainless steel. Alloying these
elements brings out different crystal structures to enable different properties of the steel for
machining, forming, welding etc. /5/, /18/.
The four major types of stainless steel are:
• Martensitic
• Ferritic
• Austenitic
• Austenitic-Ferritic (Duplex)
Martensitic steel is not of interest as reinforcement.
T T

Ferritic stainless steel has properties similar to mild steel but with the better corrosion
resistance. The most common of these steels are 12% and 17% chromium containing steels,
with 12% used mostly in structural applications and 17% in housewares, boilers, washing
machines and indoor architecture. Currently such steels are rated in the lower range of
corrosion resistance for reinforcement.
14 NonCor

Austenitic stainless steel is the most widely used type of stainless steel /19/. It has a nickel
content of at least 7%, which makes the steel structure fully austenitic and gives it ductility, a
large scale of service temperature, non-magnetic properties and good weldability. The range of
applications of austenitic stainless steel includes house wares, containers, industrial piping and
vessels, architectural facades and constructional structures. Currently such steels are rated in
the higher range of corrosion resistance for reinforcement.
Austenitic-Ferritic (Duplex) stainless steel has a combined ferritic and austenitic lattice
structure - hence the common name: duplex stainless steel. This steel has some nickel content
for a partially austenitic lattice structure. The duplex structure delivers both strength and
ductility. Duplex steels are mostly used in petrochemical-, paper-, pulp- and shipbuilding
industries. Changing price levels of some of the key alloying elements may at times result in
duplex steels being cost effective compared to austenitic steels. In such cases the duplex steels
become attractive as reinforcement in the concrete construction industry. Also in highly
chloride based corrosive environments at the high temperature range the duplex steel
reinforcement is attractive. Currently such steels are rated in the very high range of corrosion
resistance.
The growing recognition of the adverse societal impact of needed repair of prematurely
corrosion damaged concrete structures, together with the growing environmental impact of
such repairs and the growing recognition of the adverse effects of user inconvenience due to
repair works, have all together led to a rapid escalation of the use of stainless steel
reinforcement to solve the corrosion problem at the origin, /5/ /20/.
This awareness, together with the high costs of the traditional stainless steels - originally
developed to solve corrosion problem in other areas that in reinforced concrete structures -
have during the past few years made the stainless steel producers to search for methods of
producing a robust stainless steel which does not suffer so much from price volatility of the
key alloying components. This has in particular led to new products with much reduced nickel
content and possibly also low molybdenum content, so-called low-nickel duplex types (Lean
Duplex), but with sufficient nickel content to maintain the highly corrosion resistant austenitic-
ferritic crystal structure. Though none of these products are in large scale running production
yet (2006) they seem to have very interesting both corrosion resistance and mechanical
properties /21/.
Lean Duplex stainless steels are low alloyed steels but with a duplex crystal structure and with
T T

an alloy composition providing PREN values (see section 4.1.6) between the values of 1.4436
and 1.4462. LDX 2101 is produced by Outokumpu /15/ and based on their tests the corrosion
resistance of LDX 2101 lies between the resistance of the well known stainless steels 1.4301
(304) and 1.4436 (316). LDX 2101 has a very high Chromium content of 21.5% but a very low
Nickel content of 1.5% and a low Molybdenum content of 0.3%, which contributes to the
economic competitiveness of the steel. Low-Ni Duplex (1.4362) /22/ has a similar high
Chromium content of 23% and the same low Nickel content of 4%, but a Molybdenum content
of 0.2%. 1.4362 has a PREN value of 24.

3.2 Classification and chemical composition of stainless steel

Traditionally stainless steels have been classified according to one of the following systems,
/5/ /18/:
• The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) in which ferritic and martensitic steels are
classified, as 400 series alloys i.e. 403 would represent ferritic steel. The austenitic
steels are classified as 300 series alloy i.e. 304 or 316. Other than identifying the
generic group type these steel grades provided no other information regarding chemical
composition or physical and mechanical properties. Traditionally UK standards, such
as BS 9705 /23/ and BS 6744 /13/ etc. have followed the AISI classification with the
NonCor 15

addition of “S” sub-grades such as Grade 316S33. However, UK standards are being
replaced with European standards and those relevant to stainless steel will adopt the
current European classification for steels discussed below.
• The German or DIN classification based on the concept of a material number such as
1.44xx.
• The French classification based on a unique material number for a given steel i.e.
X18Cr8Ni3Mo would be an austenitic stainless steel with a nominal alloy composition
of 18% chromium, 8% nickel and 3% molybdenum. Although a somewhat
cumbersome designation this classification has the advantage of providing nominal
compositions for each type of steel.
In 1995 a new European standard EN 10088-1 /24/ was issued that provided a uniform method
of classification for stainless steels. In effect the standard adopted both the German and French
systems. Thus every stainless steel now has a generic number that identifies its grouping and
an individual material number referred to as its name giving the nominal alloy composition.
The designation system can be understood for the following example of a stainless steel
classified as:
• Material number: 1.4436
• Material name: X3CrNiMo 17-13-3
The material number has the following components:
• 1 Denotes a steel
• 44 Denotes one group of stainless steels
• 36 The individual material identification
The material name has the following components:
• x Denotes a high alloy steel
• 3 Represents 100 times the carbon content (in this case 0.03%), CrNiMo chemical
symbols of the main alloying elements 17-13-3 represents the nominal percentage of
the main alloying elements.
Additional chemical symbols, for example N for Nitrogen, represent minor but significant
alloying elements. The influence of Nitrogen on the corrosion resistance has not been included
in the material name though contributing to the PREN value (PREN value is defined in
Chapter 4.1.6).
This designation system appears to be more cumbersome than the AISI one it is intended to
replace. However, it is more logical and provides an understanding of the alloy composition
and therefore material type within the classification.
The number of types of stainless steels is very large, but only a limited number are considered
generally relevant as reinforcement for concrete structures. Therefore, this Design Guide has
limited the number to the most typical types represented by characteristic groups. These types
form the basis for this Design Guide in order to maintain an operational overview as seen form
a designer’s point of view. Variants of the selected types may very well be relevant in
individual cases, and the basic compositions and corrosion characteristics described in the
Guide may serve as an indication of the corresponding applicability of the variants.
The new European standards are currently being implemented and the use of this new
classification will take over from the more traditional method. Table 3-1 provides a
comparison of the old and new methods of classification for common stainless steel grades and
the corresponding pitting resistant equivalent number.
16 NonCor

Table 3-1: Classification of stainless steel according to international standards, and corresponding
PREN values.
PREN-
Steel Type Steel grade USA Great Britain Sweden
value
EN 10088-1 Designation AISI BS SS
X5CrNi
Austenitic 1.4301 304 314S11/314S15 2332 19
18-10
X5CrNiMo
1.4401 316 316S33 2347 25
17-12-2
X2CrNiMoN 26
1.4429 316LN 316S63 2375
17-13-3
Austenitic
X5CrNiMo
1.4436 316 2343 26
17-12-2
X6CrNiMoTi
1.4571 316Ti 2350 25
17-12-2
Ferritic- 1.41xx X3CrNiMo
- - - 26
austenitic (LDX 2101) 22-2-0
(lean duplex
X2CrNiMo
types) 1.4362 - - - 24
23-4

Ferritic-
X2CrNiMoN
austenitic 1.4462 - 318 2377 36
22-5-3
(Duplex)
EN grades are given steel numbers in groups:
1.40xx for grades with < 2,5% Ni, without Mo, without special additions;
1.41xx for grades with < 2,5% Ni, with Mo, without special additions;
1.43xx for grades with ≥ 2,5% Ni, without Mo, without special additions;
1.44xx for grades with ≥ 2,5% Ni, with Mo, without special additions;
1.45xx and 1.46xx for grades with special additions, such as Ti, Nb or Cu

It is evident, that increasing the level of alloying elements, especially chromium, nickel and
molybdenum, will increase the corrosion resistance. However changing the balance of the
alloying elements will influence the structure as well as the other properties. Therefore
members of the stainless steel family are usually combined in groups having the same
metallographic structure. The chemical compositions of the stainless steel grades given in
Table 3-1 are listed in Table 3-2.
Summarizing, Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 show the composition of a range of stainless steels,
which are available in a product form for use as reinforcement. The materials are arranged with
increasing corrosion resistance represented by the PREN values in the tables.
Increasing alloy content, particularly Cr, Ni and Mo will increase the corrosion resistance and
results in increased cost of materials. The relative cost of these critical alloying elements varies
depending on the fluctuating market prices.
NonCor 17

Table 3-2: Chemical composition of stainless steel of relevance as reinforcement

Steel grade Chemical composition
EN Cr Ni Mo N Ti
Type C Si Mn P S
10088- Designation min/ min/ min/ min/ min/
max max max max max
1 max max max max max
X5CrNi 17.5/ 8.0/ max
Austenitic 1.4301 0.07 1.0 2.0 0.045 0.03 - -
18-10 19.5 10.50 0.11
X5CrNiMo 16.5/ 10.0/ 2.00/ max
1.4401 0.07 1.0 2.0 0.045 0.03 -
17-12-2 18.5 13.0 2.50 0.11
X2CrNiMoN 16,5/ 11.0/ 2.5/ 0.12/
1.4429 0.03 1.0 2.0 0.045 0.015 -
17-13-3 18,5 14.0 3.0 0.22
Austenitic
X5CrNiMo 16.5/ 10.5/ 2.5/ max
1.4436 0.05 1.0 2.0 0.045 0.03 -
17-12-2 18.5 13.0 3.0 0.11
X6CrNiMoTi 16,5/ 10.5/ 2.0/ 5xC/
1.4571 0.08 1.0 2.0 0.045 0.03 -
17-12-2 18,5 13.5 2.5 0.7
1.41xx
X3CrNiMo max
(=LDX 0.03 0.4 5.0 - - 21.5 1.5 0.3 -
Ferritic- 22-2-0 0.22
2101)
Austenitic
0.05/
X2CrNiMo 22,0/ 3.5/ 0.1/
1.4362 0.03 1.0 2.0 0.035 0.015 0.20 -
23-4 24,0 5.5 0.6

Ferritic-
X2CrNiMoN 21,0/ 4.5/ 2.5/ 0.10/
austenitic 1.4462 0.03 1.0 2.0 0.035 0.015 -
22-5-3 23,0 6.5 3.5 0.22
(Duplex)

3.3 Documentation and application of stainless steel

reinforcement
In general most of the stainless steels used for reinforcement are within the types 1.4301 and
1.4436. Only in extreme corrosive environments like de-icing salts or marine environments
and high temperatures more resistant materials are considered like 1.41xx and 1.4462.
The specifications as listed in Table 3-3 represent an overview of available national and
European standards for the characterization of currently available equalities of SSR. These
National Standards specifies requirements and describes methods of test. National certification
bodies, certifies producers of SSR according to the national product standards.

Table 3-3: Current Specifications relevant for the documentation and application of SSR
Swedish Standards
ID. No. Title
SS 14 21 69 Reinforcement steel – SS steel 2169-13
SS 21 25 16 Reinforcement steel bar – Cold drawn and profiled bar Ps 700
SS 14 23 40 Stainless steel reinforcement – steel 2340

Danish Standards
ID. No. Title
DS 13080 Steel for reinforcement – Steel reinforcement used without pre-
stressing in concrete structures
18 NonCor

Table 3-3: (cont…)

Norwegian Standards
ID. No. Title
NS 3576-2 Steel for reinforcement of concrete – Dimensions and properties –
Part 2: Ribbed bars B500NB
NS 3576-3 Steel for reinforcement of concrete – Dimensions and properties –
Part 2: Ribbed bars B500NC

Relevant European Standards

ID. No. Title
BS 6744 Stainless steels bars for reinforcement of and use in concrete –
Requirements and test methods
BS 8666 Specification for Scheduling, dimensioning, bending and cutting of
steel reinforcement for concrete
EN 10204 Metallic products - Types of inspection documents
EN 10088-1 Stainless steels - Part 1: List of stainless steels
EN 10088-3 Stainless steels - Part 3: Technical delivery conditions for semi-
finished products, bars, rods and sections for general purposes

The national standards do not set up the same specifications for the mechanical properties of
the SSR. In general all the standards operate with ductility classes and for SSR Class B &C are
relevant. Extracts from some codes are given below:
Norwegian standard:
“NS 3576-2, ductility class B: Table 5 – Ductility requirements”
AgtB Rm/ReH
B B B B

Characteristic Characteristic Single values

value value
5,0% 1,08 1,05

“NS 3576-3, ductility class C: Table 5 – Ductility requirements”

AgtB Rm/ReH
B B B B

Characteristic Characteristic Single values

value value
8,0% 1,15 1,10

Danish standard:
“DS 13080:2001: Table 2- Ductility classes”
Aj
B B Rm/ReH
B B B B

Ductility class Characteristic values Minimum value Characteristic Minimum

value value
A •3,0% 2,5% •1,08 1,05
B •8,0% 7,5% •1,08 1,05
NonCor 19

3.3.1 Availability of grades, bar sizes and bar lengths

The stainless steel listed in Table 4-1are those available for use in the Scandinavian countries.
The stainless steel can be delivered in the same bar diameters as carbon steel reinforcement.
The standard stock bar length is 12 meter as for carbon steel. In addition stainless steel welded
mesh is available /18/.
It is possible to order stainless steel in coils and produce other bar lengths on site. If
reinforcement steel from coil is straightened on site, it must be done by a producer with 3rd
party approval. Furthermore, the mechanical properties might change and tests have to be
carried out according the specified standard.

3.3.2 Fabrication
Austenitic and duplex stainless steels can be bent to shape using the methods commonly used
for carbon steel, providing that allowance is made in the loading rating of the equipment used,
as more force is required to bend stainless steel than carbon steel because of the increase in its
strength when it is being worked (strain hardening) /18/.
Stainless steel bars should be cut and bent in accordance with requirements of BS 8666 /25/.
Stainless steel reinforcement tends to have more spring than carbon steel, which needs to be
taken into account especially when bending small dimension links.
Cutting and bending of stainless steel requires 3rd party approval to ensure the minimum
bending formers are used.

3.3.3 Costs
The often-stated barrier to use stainless steel reinforcement is the high initial cost. Over the
past few years, the price of stainless steel reinforcement has reduced and further reductions are
expected.
In comparison with the unit price of carbon steel, the stainless steel bar is about six to ten times
higher, depending on bar size and steel type, based on the currently rather high price level
(2006). However, the cost of cutting and bending, transportation and fixing stainless steel
reinforcement remains the same as for carbon steel.
The price level of the two types of Lean duplex steels is on similar relatively low level
compared to the classic stainless steels. With a price level 25-35% below the price for the types
1.4436 and 1.4462, and apparently a more stable price structure these steels seem very
interesting provided they provide the high chloride corrosion resistance in concrete as
indicated by the PREN values. According to factory information 1.4362 is currently (2006) in
running production as plates, bars and steel angels, and is expected to be available as ribbed
reinforcing bars ultimo 2006 primo 2007.
In /26/ the costs of replacing some of the carbon reinforcement with SSR has been investigated
for three real marine constructions made during the years 1995-1996. Although the material
cost of SSR in this case was 5 times the cost of ordinary reinforcement the effect on the total
construction costs of introducing SSR in the most critical zones of the turned out to be
marginal (by replacing 10 % of carbon steel with SSR the initial construction costs increased
by 1- 2 %) .
Such experience will have a very positive economic effect if a life cycle cost (LCC)
optimization is performed. The increase in initial costs arising from the use of SSR should be
offset against possible reduction in future maintenance costs, both scheduled and unscheduled.
Examples of are given in /5/ and Chapter 7.3.
20 NonCor
NonCor 21

4 Corrosion properties of stainless steel

reinforcement
4.1 Corrosion types
The passive film ensuring the corrosion resistance of stainless steel can be broken down
completely or partly with corrosion as a result. However, the passive layer has the ability of
repassivation in an environment containing oxygen, such as in air or in aerated solutions. This
environment is sufficient for both the creation and the maintenance of the passive layer of
stainless steels. There are, nevertheless, environments that cause permanent breakdown of the
passive layer. This could be with high chloride concentrations above a so-called chloride
corrosion threshold value or in oxygen-free environments like permanently water saturated
conditions. Seawater in the tidal and splash zones will usually have adequate oxygen content to
maintain the passive film on built-in stainless steel reinforcement. Under circumstances where
the passive layer cannot be rebuilt, corrosion occurs on the unprotected surface /16/, /27/.
The types of corrosion, which in general can occur on stainless steels, are the following:
• Uniform Corrosion
• Galvanic Corrosion
• Pitting Corrosion
• Stress Corrosion Cracking
• Crevice Corrosion
• Atmospheric Corrosion
• Intergranular Corrosion
• Corrosion Fatigue
From those above mentioned, uniform corrosion, galvanic corrosion, pitting corrosion, crevice
corrosion and stress corrosion cracking could in principle be expected for stainless steel
reinforcement in concrete. Atmospheric corrosion, intergranular corrosion and corrosion
fatigue are not generally relevant for concrete structures and therefore not mentioned further.

4.1.1 Uniform corrosion

Uniform corrosion occurs when the passive layer on a stainless steel surface partly or
completely breaks down.
The corrosion then propagates at a rate determined by a combination of the corrosive
environment and the alloy composition. Uniform corrosion or general corrosion occurs on
stainless steel in acid environments or hot alkaline solutions. Severe environments from a
corrosive point of view are high concentrations of hydrochloric or hydrofluoric acid in which
the corrosion may propagate at a rate that can be detrimental to a construction.

4.1.2 Galvanic corrosion

When two dissimilar metals are connected electrically and immersed in a conductive liquid, an
T

electrolyte, their corrosion performance might differ significantly when compared with the
metals, uncoupled. As a rule, the less noble material, the anode, is attacked, whilst the more
noble metal, the cathode, is essentially protected from corrosion. This phenomenon is called
galvanic corrosion.
 22 NonCor

If the passivity of one of the steel grades breaks down and corrosion occurs, the corrosion rate
increases further by the galvanic coupling. In addition the galvanic series are dependent on
temperature and the composition of the conductive solution. Knowledge about the series in the
specific environment is necessary to predict galvanic corrosion.

4.1.3 Pitting corrosion

Pitting is a form of localized corrosion and is characterized by attacks at small discrete spots
T

on the steel surface. Pitting occurs mainly in the presence of neutral or acidic solutions
T

containing chlorides or other halides. Chloride ions facilitate a local breakdown of the passive
layer, especially if there are imperfections in the metal surface.
Initiation sites may be non-metallic inclusions, e.g. sulphides, micro crevices caused by coarse
grinding, or deposits formed by slag, suspended solids, etc. When the metal corrodes in the pit,
dissolved metal ions generate an environment with low pH and chloride ions migrate into the
pit to balance the positive charge of the metal ions.
A higher chromium, molybdenum and nitrogen content in the steel increases the resistance to
pitting. The relative resistance to pitting is often measured as a critical pitting corrosion
temperature, CPT, in a selected media. T

4.1.4 Stress corrosion cracking

A material failure may be accelerated by the combined effect of a corrosion process and a
T

mechanical stress. Two examples of such processes are stress-corrosion cracking and corrosion
fatigue. The most common type is trans-granular stress-corrosion cracking, SCC, that may
T

develop in concentrated chloride-containing environments. Previously, it was generally

considered that an elevated temperature was necessary for SCC to occur.
In recent years, however, SCC has been experienced at ambient temperature on standard grade
steels like 304(L), which corresponds to 1.4306 and 1.4307, or 316(L), which corresponds to
1.4404, 1.4432 and 1.4435, that were exposed to high tensile stresses. In these cases the steel
surface was contaminated with solid salt deposits and the humidity of the atmosphere was
rather high. These two factors resulted in a thin liquid film saturated with chloride. Other
contaminants, such as H2S, may increase the risk of SCC in chloride containing environments.
B B

4.1.5 Crevice corrosion

Crevice corrosion is a form of localized corrosion and occurs under the same conditions as
T

pitting, i.e. in neutral or acidic chloride solutions. However, attack starts more easily in a
T

narrow crevice than on an unshielded surface. Crevices, such as those found at flange joints or
at threaded connections, are thus often the most critical sites for corrosion.
In narrow crevices, capillary forces make liquid penetrate into the crevice. Oxygen and other
oxidants are consumed for the maintenance of the passive layer in the crevice just as on the
unshielded surface. However, in the stagnant solution inside the crevice, the supply of new
oxidant is restricted, causing a weakened passive layer, hence an anodic site.
Small amounts of dissolved metal ions inside the crevice cause a decrease of the solution pH
and the presence of chlorides facilitates the break-down of the passive layer. Thus the
environment inside the crevice gradually becomes more aggressive and repassivation becomes
less likely. As a result, crevice corrosion attacks often propagate at a high rate, thereby causing
corrosion failure in a short time.
NonCor 23

4.1.6 Corrosion resistance

Austenitic steels are more or less resistant to general corrosion, crevice corrosion and pitting,
depending on the quantity of alloying elements. Resistance to pitting and crevice corrosion is
very important if the steel is to be used in chloride-containing environments not protected by a
high pH-value. Resistance to pitting and crevice corrosion increases with increasing contents
of chromium, molybdenum and nitrogen /28/.
The austenitic- ferritic steels (duplex) are quite superior to the common austenitic steels in
respect to corrosion resistance and especially to stress corrosion cracking. Today's modern
steels with correctly balanced compositions, for example Duplex 1.4462, also possess good
pitting resistance properties and are not sensitive to intergranular corrosion after welding.
Whereas chromium is the main alloying element, molybden and nitrogen has more effect on
the localized corrosion resistance. In order to compare stainless steel grades with different
alloying, correlation of the influence of the different elements has been made resulting in the
expression of pitting resistance equivalent number (PREN). This expression can be considered
as a relative measure of the total resistance resources for the steel grade and thus as a
comparable value for ranking the corrosion resistance against chloride pitting corrosion. The
expression is calculated from the content of the alloying elements in the steel grade.
For austenitic steels the expression is:
PREN = %Chromium + 3,3 * %Molybdenum + 16 *%Nitrogen
For duplex steels the effect of nitrogen is considered higher resulting in the expression
PREN = %Chromium + 3,3 *%Molybdenum + 30 *%Nitrogen
The susceptibility to pitting corrosion increases with the decrease in PREN value. Examples of
commercially available standard grades, which can be used in concrete, and their pitting
resistance equivalent number, are shown in Table 3-1.
The PREN values have been developed to represent the level of corrosion resistance of
different grades of stainless steel to be used directly exposed to a corrosive environment.
Therefore the values cannot be directly transferred to represent the absolute pitting corrosion
resistance of SSR cast into alkaline concrete. But the values represent the best available
relative measure of the pitting corrosion resistance of the SSR exposed to chlorides in concrete
/18/ /28/.

4.2 Resistance to chloride attack and carbonation

The corrosion resistance required for use in concrete is primarily resistance against localized
corrosion in chloride containing media. This resistance depends on the main alloying elements
of chromium, nickel, molybden and nitrogen. The onset of corrosion is dependent on the
critical chloride concentration at the level of the reinforcement triggering corrosion by
eliminating the passive layer locally. This so-called threshold value for chloride corrosion
initiation depends on the degree of alloying of the steel, the level of alkalinity of the
surrounding concrete and the level of the ambient temperature /29/.
Reduced alkalinity may be a result of carbonation of concrete, where the carbonated concrete
normally has a pH of about 9. In this connection it should be mentioned that “Blended”
cements may cause reduced alkalinity of the concrete, hence lower pH value and thereby
buffer of hydroxide in the pore solution against carbonation. Leakage will also reduce the pH-
value of concrete.
At the UK Building Research Establishment tests (BRE) /30/, /31/, /32/ studies have been
performed to assess the risks of corrosion of SSR in chloride contaminated concrete. A range
24 NonCor

of the most typical types of SSR were examined by casting them into concrete prisms with
varying levels of cast-in chloride concentrations and immersed in seawater.
The conclusion of these tests was that austenitic SSR were virtually immune to corrosion
attack. A further interesting observation from the seawater immersion was the limited level of
pitting attack observed on the 316-type SSR (1.4436 and 1.4429) in the unfavourable condition
of having bare steel projecting from the concrete. In these tests, the corrosive attack of the
exposed areas was non-existing or superficial, even after 22 years in marine conditions. All the
austenitic steels tested showed very high corrosion resistance with no serious corrosion of any
bars, but recommendations were made that the molybdenum bearing alloys (1.4436 (316) and
higher 1.4462 (duplex)) should be used in chloride-contaminated conditions to minimise the
risk of corrosion, especially where high chloride contents and/or carbonation to the full depth
of cover were anticipated.
Similar studies were carried out at the Politecnico di Milano /33/, /34/, /35/ and /36/ on several
types of SSR in concrete and in solutions simulating the concrete pore liquid. These tests
evaluated the corrosion conditions in concrete exposed to various environments, i.e. different
temperatures, chloride levels and alkalinity. Testing temperatures of 20oC and 40oC were used
P P P P

to simulate temperate and hot climates. Equivalent types of steels, 1.4301, 1.4429, 1.4529 and
1.4362 were tested. The duplex steel 1.4362 contains only 0.2% molybdenum compared to the
most common type duplex SSR today, 1.4462, containing 2.5% molybdenum. As the contents
of molybdenum is expected to have a major influence on the corrosion resistance, the results of
the 1.4362 is not included in the guidance presented in Figure 4-1. As SSR grade 1.4436 (316)
also was not included in the tests, but the corrosion resistance expected to be between the value
of 1.4429 and greater than 1.4301, it has been included in the band covered by the same band
as 1.4429 in Figure 4-1.
• These test programmes led to factual conclusions regarding the chloride corrosion
resistance of the different grades of SSR:
• As the alkalinity increased, chloride induced corrosion decreased
• The critical chloride threshold levels exceeded 10% Cl- by weight of cement in the
P P

highly alkaline solution (pH 13.9), at both 20oC and 40oC

P P P P

• At a pH of 12.75 the steel requires a chloride ion concentration by weight of cement in

excess of 4% Cl- by weight of cement to initiate corrosion; an increase in pH to 13
P P

raises the concentration for corrosion initiation to approximately 6%. These chloride
concentrations are very high compared to those found in actual structures. It would
indicate that for most general applications this grade of steel would be a suitable
material.
• Tests in nearly neutral pore water solutions (pH 7.5) showed a lower resistance to
chloride induced corrosion, especially when the chromium content was low
• In the case of carbonated concrete in which the pH has fallen to a value in the order of
approx. 9 stainless steels will also be of benefit. Under these conditions the stainless
steel will unlike carbon steel, remain passive in this condition. Stainless steel will also
be of benefit where the concrete is both carbonated and chloride contaminated to the
level of the reinforcement. In this case the threshold concentration to corrosion
initiation is lower, than in higher pH conditions, but would still be satisfactory
provided the appropriate grade of stainless steel is selected.
• By increasing the temperature to 40oC, a general reduction of corrosion resistance was
P P

observed, except with the super austenitic steel 1.4529 (this steel not specifically
included in this report). The duplex type 1.4462 is expected to have similar good
corrosion resistance under these circumstances.
NonCor 25

Following the data from these different test regimes but analyzing the same issues, the chloride
corrosion resistance of different grades of SSR can be presented schematically in the
informative Figure 4-1 where the curves indicate the conditions of alkalinity and chloride
content in which it is considered safe to use the different steels.
The corrosion threshold level is defined as the level at which corrosion of the reinforcement
starts; below this level the reinforcement is passive. In this comparison it is essential to note
that carbon steel reinforcement is susceptible to localized corrosion at low chloride contents
even in alkaline concrete, as illustrated in Figure 4-1. This corresponds well with the normal
considered threshold value for chloride content for corrosion of black steel in concrete on
approximately 0.4 % Cl- by weight of cement.
P P

Further in Figure 4-1, the effect of temperature on the threshold values is illustrated based on
comparative test results performed at 20oC and 40oC, respectively. The effect of the alkalinity,
P P P P

pH value is pronounced in both situations. Special attention shall be drawn to the considerable
effects observed within the range of pH=12.5-13. This relatively small difference in alkalinity
of the pore water would represent the normal difference in pH of noncarbonated concrete made
with either a highly blended cement (lower pH value) or with an OPC cement (higher pH
value).

Figure 4-1: Illustrative representation of the application of different grades of SSR in chloride
containing environments. The threshold levels are indicative only, as local conditions may increase
as well as reduce the indicated values. The effect of temperature on the threshold values is
illustrated from the presentation of comparative test results performed at 20oC and 40oC,
P P P P

respectively /36/
26 NonCor

A long-term site exposure performed in the onerous climate conditions in the Arabian Gulf
using SSR is interesting in the sense that this environment is considered the most aggressive in
all aspects regarding chloride induced reinforcement corrosion /37/. The reason is the adverse
T T

synergetic effect of the high ground and ambient salinity, the high average temperature, the
high humidity level and even the high aridity. Austenitic steel type 316 after natural exposure
for 12 years in concrete with low cement content of only 220 kg/m3, poorly cured concrete and
P P

with a 3.2% chloride ion content by weight of cement in the original mix, showed no
significant loss in weight due to corrosion. This performance was clearly much better than that
of the high yield carbon steel reinforcement, which has been known to start corroding after just
a couple of years even in high quality concrete with large cover in these conditions.

4.3 Surface finish of stainless steel reinforcement

The surface of stainless steel can vary from matt chemically de-scaled finish to a bright as-
rolled or cold drawn finish. The presence of a scale or oxides on SSR should be avoided
because it can increase the risk of galvanic corrosion.
In addition, the surface of SSR may be polluted with carbon steel particles when being stored
together with carbon steel or handled on equipment also handling carbon steel reinforcement.
Such extensive superficial surface pollution should be avoided as there is a small risk that
galvanic corrosion may develop. However, this is of very minor importance in practice, as the
effect of the corrosion of the carbon steel particles is negligible from a structural point of view,
as these particles cannot cause any cracking or damage to the concrete cover, only result in
unsightly discoloration of the SSR surfaces when stored in most atmosphere or when exposed
through breakouts in the concrete polluted with chlorides.
One unresolved issue at present is the risk of having carbon steel particles pressed deeply into
the crystal lattice of the SSR through handling with carbon steel equipment, and then these
particles corrodes when critical amounts of chlorides reach the steel surface. For sensitive
grades of SSR it could be considered whether this corrosion inside the crystal lattice could
initiate pitting or crevice corrosion. This theoretical type of corrosion has not been reported
and the issue remains a suggestion for testing.

4.4 Classification of corrosion resistance of stainless steel

reinforcements
In practice it may be cumbersome to operate continuously with the many different steel grade
designations available as SSR. Only in the detailed design and in the specifications will it be
necessary to be precise in the designation of the steel grade required. Also the variable price
levels of the different grades may warrant a somewhat more simple corrosion resistant
classification until the final quality is adopted.
Therefore, such an operational classification is suggested in Table 4-1. A recommendation of
the application of the different corrosion resistant classes is related to the corrosivity of the
operating environment of the structure and its assumed longevity /28/, /38/, /39/ .
When adopting the corrosion resistant classes it shall be taken into account that different steps
of the processing and handling of the steel, such as cold working, heat treatment, welding and
bending, may have adverse influence on the corrosion resistance.
It may be noted, that the Lean duplex types of SSR, are not included in Table 4-1. This shall
not be interpreted as a de-classification of their corrosion resistance in structural application.
They have been left out because these grades of reinforcement are not yet in running
production (2006)
NonCor 27

Table 4-1: Classification of corrosion resistance of available ribbed SSR (2006)

Corrosion Steel grade
PREN-
resistance Steel Type
EN 10088-1 Designation value
class
Class 0 Carbon steel (-) (-) (-)
Austenitic 1.4301 X5CrNi 18-10 19
Class 1
(without Mo) 1.4541 X6CrNiTi 18-10 17
Austenitic 1.4401 X5CrNiMo 17-12-2 25
(with Mo) 1.4429 X2CrNiMoN 17-13-3 26
Class 2
1.4436 X5CrNiMo 17-12-2 26
1.4571 X6CrNiMoTi 17-12-2 25
Ferritic-
Class 3 austenitic 1.4462 X2CrNiMoN 22-5-3 36
(Duplex)

There are no hesitations regarding adequate corrosion resistance. If independent testing

confirmed the producers' own extensive testing, then such Lead duplex types could become
part of the recommended types of SSR in the future.

4.5 Resistance to galvanic corrosion

When stainless steel is cast into concrete, however, the cathodic reaction is a very slow
process, since no catalytic activity takes place on a stainless steel surface. A research project
conducted at the FORCE Technology /40/ has indicated that the cathodic reaction is inhibited
on stainless steel embedded in concrete, as compared to the cathodic reaction on carbon steel
reinforcement in galvanic contact with corroding carbon steel /41/. Publications of Pedeferri et.
al, /36/ and Jägi et. al. /42/ provides also results, which confirmed the above mentioned
findings.
The fact that stainless steel is a far less effective cathode in concrete than carbon steel, makes
stainless steel a useful reinforcement material for application in repair projects. When part of
the corroded reinforcement, e.g. close to the concrete cover, is to be replaced, it could be
advantageous to use stainless steel instead of carbon steel. In being a poor cathode, the
stainless steel would minimize any possible problems that may occur in neighbouring
corroding and passive areas after repair. The experimental results (Figure 4-2) where the
carbon steel (initially passive and later corroding) was connected to stainless steel, has
confirmed this behaviour.

Figure 4-2: Macro-couple current for carbon steel starting to corrode coupled to either stainless
steel or passive carbon /41/
28 NonCor

Stainless steel freely exposed to seawater may, if in galvanic contact with less noble metal
such as carbon steel (also exposed to sea water), initiate a rapid galvanic type of corrosion of
the less noble metal. The otherwise slow cathodic oxygen reduction at the stainless steel
surface is catalyzed by a bacterial slime, which forms after a few weeks in seawater.
When the current is measured between the carbon steel rebar starting to corrode and a rebar of
carbon steel that is still passive, a current density value of approximately 4.3 μA /cm2 is P P

recorded. If the same corroding carbon steel rebar is connected to the stainless steel with the
surface area equal to the passive carbon steel, the measured current density value is reduced to
only 0.27 μA/cm2, se Figure 4-3. This means a reduction in current density by a factor of
P P T T

approximately 15, which will result in the same decrease in corrosion rate. In addition where
the carbon steel is placed outside the most aggressive exposure conditions the potential
difference between the carbon steel and SSR will be relatively small and so will the corrosion
rate. On top of this is the inefficient cathodic action of the SSR as described above.
Therefore, it is very important for the intelligent use of stainless steel that it be combined with
carbon steel in proportions that guarantee both an optimal performance and cost-effective
solution.
It seems to be a fact that most of civil engineers have an unfounded fear of using stainless steel
and carbon steel together in the same concrete structure. In Denmark, FORCE Technology
(The former Danish Corrosion Centre) has given advice to more than 100 clients on the use of
stainless steel in concrete. Nearly always the clients had to be convinced, that it is in the fact
good and safe practice to use stainless steel in the most chloride exposed concrete, with the
stainless steel in good - often welded - connection with the carbon steel as the main
reinforcement. On Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 examples of the application in practice of
combined carbon steel and SSR are shown.
A significant macro couple corrosion threatening the SSR can only arise under very particular
conditions. For example, when the SSR in concrete is in heavy chloride contaminated
conditions and is deprived from the access of oxygen, i.e. in water saturated condition, and the
carbon steel is in aerated condition and in non-chloride contaminated condition. The risk of
pitting corrosion of the SSR increases to the level typical of the aerated condition for carbon
steel.

Figure 4-3: Combination of stainless steel reinforcement and ordinary black steel reinforcement.
Only the deck part later to be exposed to a marine environment is reinforced with SSR. The
remaining part of the deck, later to become part of the indoor structure, is reinforced with ordinary
carbon steel reinforcement. No special precautions are needed where the two types of steel meet.
NonCor 29

Figure 4-4: Bridge column in marine environment reinforced with two or more layers of
reinforcement. The outer layer is SSR and the subsequent layers are ordinary carbon steel
reinforcement.

Stainless steel is also an excellent material to be used for all components, which are only
partially embedded in concrete, especially connected to the reinforcement. Examples are blots,
binders, ladder rungs, inserts, electrical connectors, sanitary piping and bushings.

4.6 Corrosion resistance of welded stainless steel reinforcement

In the presence of chlorides the corrosion resistance of stainless steel in concrete can be
adversely influenced in the region of the weld and the heat affected zone /43/. This is because
welding results in the formation of high temperature oxides on the surface of the steel, often
referred to as heat tint, or welding scale, and these oxides do not remain as stable (passive) as
the oxide layers on the bare stainless steel when exposed to chloride environments.
An investigation of the effect of resistance on welding on the corrosion resistance of carbon
steel and stainless steel reinforcement types 1.4301 and 1.4436 has been conducted /29/. The
effect of ingress of chlorides as well as cast-in chlorides was investigated. The studies showed
that the stainless steel reduced the chloride threshold level from 10, in the not-welded case, to
three to six times that of the carbon steel as welded, due to the combined effect of oxide and
insufficient compaction of concrete around the weld
The corrosion resistance can be reinstated by the complete removal of all heat tint scale after
welding. This is not easily done under conditions prevailing on construction sites. Primarily
because the heat tint scales are very adherent and difficult to remove, in practice the only
methods that can guarantee removal are either abrasive blast cleaning or the use of pickling
pastes both of which are difficult to carry out on site. However, welding in factory conditions,
where welding condition can be closely controlled, can be carried out successfully.
Where bars need to be joined alternative methods of connection, such as lapping or mechanical
couplers, should be used. If welding is unavoidable then a post cleaning process should form
part of the welding procedure qualification. The quality procedures should also include
accelerated testing to demonstrate that the cleaning process reinstates the corrosion resistance
of the stainless steel surface.
30 NonCor
NonCor 31

5 Mechanical and physical properties of stainless

steel reinforcement
5.1 Stress-strain relationships
The stress-strain relationship for different types of stainless steels is illustrated in Figure 5-1
/15/. Note that only the austenitic and the ferritic-austenitic (duplex) steel are relevant as
reinforcement. Austenitic and duplex (and ferritic) grades of steels show early plastic
deformation in test, and continue to sustain increasing load with increasing strain.
Cold working will increases the strength of the steels and is therefore used to meet the
requirements for use as reinforcement in concrete. Cold working usual results in martensite
formation in 1.4301 types, whereas in 1.4401/1.4436 and duplex materials, this is not the case.
For the austenitic types cold working results in a reduction of the elongation from 40% to 20-
25%.
For small dimensions (<16 mm) also warm working (at temperature somewhat lower than
normal for such process) may be used for increasing the strength, resulting in mechanical
properties similar to those obtained by cold working.

Another way of increasing strength is addition of

nitrogen (0.15-0.2%). This is however not
sufficient to reach the required strength and must
therefore be combined with either cold or warm
working.
To characterize the design strength of such strain
hardening materials, proof strength are defined
and determined as the tensile stress (RP0,2) at
B B

elongation (strain) 0,2 %. Ultimate tensile

strength is defined at the maximum load the
tested reinforcement can withstand.
As listed in Table 5-1, stainless steels can be
produced as ribbed bars within the normal range
of strength and deformability required for
application in concrete.
The modulus of elasticity (E-modulus) for the
relevant SSR is about 200 kN/mm2, in the same
P P

range as for carbon steel reinforcement (210

kN/mm2 ).
P P

Owing to their excellent mechanical properties in

Figure 5-1: Stress-strain curves for different
stainless steels at room temperature /15/
the as-rolled conditions, duplex steels are of
particular interest as material for reinforcement.
For example, the duplex steel of grade 1.4462
(X2CrNiMoN 22-5) as cold rolled, has proof
strength of 950 MPa, tensile strength of 1059
MPa and elongation of 14 % for 10 mm bars.
32 NonCor

Table 5-1: Mechanical properties of SSR

Proof Tensile E-
Elongation
Steel Dimension strength strength Rm/ B B modulus
grade [mm] RP0,2B Rm B B B

Agt / RP0,2
B B at 20°C
A5
B B

[N/mm2] [N/mm2] P P P P

Aj B B
B B

[kN/mm2]P P

≥5/
1.4301 3-16 ≥550 ≥600 ≥15 ≥1.10 200
≥8
Cold ≥5/
1.4436 3-16 ≥550 ≥600 ≥15 ≥1.10 200
drawn ≥8
≥5/
1.4571 3-16 ≥550 ≥600 ≥15 ≥1.10 200
≥8
≥5/
1.4301 20-40 ≥500/ ≥550 ≥700 ≥15 ≥1.10 200
≥8
Hot ≥5/
1.4571 20-32 ≥500/ ≥550 ≥700 ≥15 ≥1.10 200
rolled ≥8
≥5/
1.4462 20-50 ≥500/ ≥550 ≥700 ≥15 ≥1.10 200
≥8

5.2 Application at extreme temperatures

Carbon steel experience a considerable drop in proof stress at elevated temperatures,
particularly at temperatures above say 500 oC. Similarly, they experience a considerable loss in
P P

ductility and increased brittleness at temperatures below zero. Below -20 oC most carbon steels P P

behave very brittle and would not be adequate as reinforcement in structures exposed to
sudden impact loading or seismic actions.
This situation is very different for SSR. The austenitic stainless steels maintain their strengths
at considerable higher temperatures than carbon steel. Therefore such steels are more resistant
and robust under fire loading than carbon steel. Similarly, austenitic steels maintain their
strength and ductility at very low temperatures, so-called cryogenic temperatures, which may
reach as low as -196 oC. In addition their strengths increase slightly under decreasing
P P

temperatures.
Although stainless steels are most commonly used for their corrosion resistance stainless steels
are often used for their high temperature properties. Stainless steels can be found in
applications where high temperature oxidation resistance is necessary and in other applications
where high temperature strength is required. The high chromium content which is so beneficial
to the wet corrosion resistance of stainless steels is also highly beneficial to their high
temperature strength and resistance to scaling at elevated temperatures.
The particular crystalline structure of the austenitic steels allows them to maintain a high
degree of toughness (Charpy impact test) with a large temperature range, from elevated
temperature to far below the freezing point. Due to the difference in crystalline structure
between austenitic steel and duplex steel, (where duplex is in part ferritic) duplex steel
undergoes a marked decrease in toughness at low temperature, an effect which starts at about -
50oC.
P P

5.3 Fatigue
SSR has fatigue properties similar to that of carbon steel reinforcement when tested in the
atmosphere. However, the critical issue of fatigue for reinforcement is the special situation of a
fatigue loading in a corrosive environment. In this case the much increased corrosion
NonCor 33

resistance of SSR compared to carbon steel reinforcement results in a marked increased

corrosion fatigue resistance of SSR compared to carbon steel reinforcement.
The fatigue limit (upper limit of fatigue stress to be supported indefinitely) for SSR, is related
to the tensile strength of the steel. In this case the increased strength of several of the types of
SSR compared to carbon steel reinforcement leads to a corresponding increased fatigue limit.

5.4 Physical properties

The density of SSR varies only marginally from normal carbon steel reinforcement, as seen in
Table 5-2, and in all practical applications the small variations cannot be of concern.
SSR has a thermal expansion which for the austenitic steels is approximately 16 x10-6, and theP P

austenitic-ferritic duplex steels have a thermal expansion of approximately 13 x10-6, compared

P P

to the carbon steel with a thermal expansion of 12 x10-6, see Table 5-2.
P P

Although the difference between the thermal expansion of austenitic and carbon steel is not
negligible this issue is not of concern in the structural design. The issue is to compare the
thermal coefficient between the steel and the concrete, and there classical concretes have a
coefficient close to the value of carbon steel. However, depending of the type and quality of
aggregates (with granite and gabbro at the low end, and limestone at the high end regarding
thermal expansion) the concrete itself can have a thermal expansion coefficient which may
vary say 20%, and the elastic modulus of the concrete may also vary 20-30% or more,
depending on the mix. These variations in strain properties have never been reported giving
structural or performance related difficulties in concrete structures.

Table 5-2: Physical properties of stainless steel /18/

Steel grade Density Thermal expansion
kg/m3P P
[10-6/°C]
P P

Carbon steel 8000 12

1.4301 7900 16
1.4436 8000 16
1.4462 7800 13

In general austenitic type stainless steels are considered to be practically non-magnetic.

However, cold drawn bars gain some magnetic permeability. The magnetic permeability
decreases in the designation order 1.4301>1.4436>1.4429>1.4529. Therefore SSR required to
have a low magnetic permeability (not magnetic) must be hot-rolled and be of a specific
compositions or alternatively tested. As an example cold drawn bars of 1.4571 has been tested
to a permeability of µ = 1,00800.
Duplex stainless steels are magnetic, as are carbon steels.
34 NonCor
NonCor 35

6 Designing and constructing with stainless steel

reinforcement
6.1 General
When considering the adoption of SSR to eliminate the corrosion risk problems within a
stipulated long service life, the additional costs for the SSR obviously becomes a key issue and
alternative corrosion preventive measures are frequently tabled. Due to the cost implications
and the level of reliability of the alternative solutions, these issues should be addressed at a
very early stage of the design process in order for the owner and client to select the final
solution being the optimal for him. However, only a profound knowledge of the governing
deterioration mechanisms can assist in such evaluations, together with long-term
documentation and experience.
A number of corrosion preventive measures, apart from concrete quality, concrete cover and
SSR, may be considered when ensuring long service life of concrete structures, such as:
• Surface treatment of concrete
• Corrosion inhibitors
• Cathodic prevention
• Non-metallic reinforcement
• Corrosion resistant steel (not stainless) reinforcement
Some of these methods are discussed in Chapter 6.8.
Life cycle cost analyses have shown that the use of SSR in zones exposed to high chloride
concentrations is an economic beneficial solution (/5/ and Chapter 7.3). Following the
“Avoidance of deterioration approach”/3/ (see Chapter 2.3.1) this approach can ensure a very
long problem-free service life in the structure, provided the concrete itself is made sufficiently
resistant to avoid other types of deterioration (sulphate attack, salt scaling etc.).
Selecting SSR of the types listed in Table 4-1 may in principle lead to a simple replacement of
ordinary carbon steel reinforcement with SSR in the ratio 1:1 as the structural properties are
the same regarding strength and ductility (or better for several of the available types of SSR).
Several other advantages by using SSR may be adopted, as described in Chapter 6.3 and 6.4.
SSR can be combined with black steel cast into concrete without risks of galvanic corrosion
due to bi-metal - or galvanic - action. This is an important observation, and is the precondition
for general economical application of SSR used only in the parts of the structure where this
protection is needed, so-called selective use. If the stainless steel protrudes from the concrete,
such as for inserts and fastenings, then this will also be satisfactory as long as the contact to the
carbon steel is within the concrete section.
The key design parameters to be addressed in the design with SSR are:
• SSR grade in relation to the prevailing environmental aggressivity
• Concrete section design
- Concrete cover
- Concrete mix representing the required quality
- Design crack widths
• Execution conditions and after-treatment
36 NonCor

- Plastic shrinkage cracking

- Thermal cracking

6.2 Selection of stainless steel reinforcement grade

Available ribbed stainless steel reinforcement (2006) is listed in Table 4-1. Research in Europe
has shown that all grades of austenitic steels will perform well in chloride contaminated
concrete exposed to harsh environments and other research has shown that the tolerance of
stainless steels to chloride induced corrosion is at least an order of magnitude greater than for
carbon steels
In Table 4-1 an attempt has been made to classify the various available ribbed stainless steel
material grades into corrosion resistance classes. Such a classification system should have been
based on chloride threshold values determined for different grades of SSR cast in concrete, but
due to lack of such appropriate test data the classification is based on PREN values. The
selection of the reinforcement grade should also take account of the beneficial effect of the
high pH environment surrounding the SSR and the effect this has on the passivating layer, see
Figure 4-1. A classification based on PREN values is not able to take into account this effect
but then the risks of carbonation of the concrete reaching the reinforcement within the design
life do not influence the classification either.
The choice of material grade depends both on the design service life and the environmental
aggressivity. The results of research over the last 30 years has provided a rational basis for the
selection of material grades for a given application, based on probable chloride levels within
concrete structures. In general a specific evaluation of the relevant parameters should be
performed for the specific structure and environmental conditions.
In order to sum up this experience related to the proposed SSR classification an attempt on
exemplification is performed (Table 4-1). For concrete structures located in marine
environment in the Nordic countries (moderate temperature and relative humidity) with a low
design service life (10 – 30 years), carbon steel reinforcement (Class 0) may be used. For
concrete structures located in the same environment with a moderate design service life (50 –
100 years), Class 1 SSR (Table 4-1) should be used in the most exposed zones to gain a
reliable solution. For long design service life (200 - 300 years) in the same environment, the
use of Class 2 SSR may be appropriate. Further for concrete structures in moderate
temperature and relative humidity exposed to high chloride concentrations from e.g. de-icing
salt, Class 2 SSR should be adapted to gain a moderate design service life. The same
recommendation could be given for structures located in marine environment combined with
high temperature and relative humidity and a request for moderate design service life and for
cases where the steel is only partially embedded (dowel bars, inserts, fastenings and holding
down connections). The use of Class 3 SSR should be evaluated if the design request is long
service life for structures in marine environment with high temperature and relative humidity.
If material costs are included in the evaluation, the distinction between Class 2 and Class 3
materials become a bit irrelevant as the prices today are quite equal. The Lean duplex steel
reinforcement (a Class 2 material) may be an option in the near future, pending the needed
documentation and commercial production of ribbed reinforcement.
The selective use of stainless steel shall include both the recommendation of when and where
this procedure may bring the desired results and also the precautions to be taken against the
opposite effect. This should include guidance for type of stainless steel to be chosen for certain
application and environment, proportioning of mix between stainless steel and carbon steel,
and description of recommended connection type (physical by bending or welding including
all precautions).
NonCor 37

Particular specifications for works with stainless steel reinforcement should as a minimum
include the following headings if not covered by the general specifications:
• Location; - where shall SSR be used
• General; - type of steel
• Relevant standards should be mentioned
• Material Properties; - physical properties
• Workmanship
• Bending of SSR
• Fixing of SSR
• Anchorage and lapping of SSR
• Welding; - Specify if welding is allowed
• Testing; - Additional testing
• Storage; - Separation from carbon steels and marking
• Spacers; - Requirements to spacers (for instance non-metallic spacers) and tying wire

6.3 Concrete section design

The inherent corrosion resistance of SSR allows room for considerable changes in the design
for durability compared to current designs based on carbon steel reinforcement. These changes
reflect relaxations which also will result in overall cost savings on the individual items, an
issue which will compensate for the prevailing high costs for the SSR compared to the carbon
steel reinforcement.
These specific design issues are addressed below.

6.3.1 Concrete cover

Concrete cover has three main purposes in the structure:
• Ensure adequate anchorage of the reinforcement at bar ends and at lap joints. This is a
structural issue independent of durability issues
• Protect the (carbon steel) reinforcement against corrosion caused by ingressing
chlorides or from an approaching carbonation front. This determines the quality
required of the concrete, represented by the penetrability to the aggressive substances
in question, in combination with the cover thickness. In addition, the level of alkalinity
of the concrete is an issue as higher pH leads to higher chloride threshold values, for
carbon steel as well as for stainless steel
• Protect the reinforcement against excessive heat from fires
Anchorage: The structural aspect of anchorage is the same for the two types of
reinforcements. Hence minimum covers allowed for carbon steel reinforcement shall also
govern for SSR. Based on current code requirements the minimum concrete cover to the
outermost reinforcement bars can be relaxed to 30 mm with a tolerance of typically +5
mm, which determines the dimension of the spacers to minimum 35 mm.
Protection of the reinforcement: No additional corrosion protection of the SSR is
required. Only in zones where the SSR and carbon steel reinforcement is coupled or
lapped, or where only carbon steel reinforcement is used shall the traditional covers
38 NonCor

prevail, but adjusted to the environment (exposure conditions) governing in these zones.
This latter environment should in general be considerably less onerous than where the SSR
is applied - that is the whole idea of using SSR selectively.
Fire protection: The need for fire protection is similar for the two types of reinforcements.
However, the SSR is more tolerant to high fire-induced temperatures by loosing strength
only at higher temperatures than carbon steel. In addition, the relaxed concrete denseness
needed in the case of adopting SSR reduces the risks of explosive spalling, and thus the
selection of SSR introduces indirectly higher resistance - or safety - against damage by fire.
This may however not be the case, where the design needs to take both water tightness and
corrosion into account.

6.3.2 Concrete mix and concrete quality

Having solved the corrosion problem through the selection of an appropriate grade of SSR then
the selection of the concrete mix can be optimized by taking a number of other properties into
account. With reference to the type of mix usually adopted to protect carbon steel
reinforcement, these additional properties would typically lead to relaxations regarding the
concrete denseness and permeability properties towards deleterious substance penetrating into
the concrete in gaseous and aqueous form.
Such relaxation of the usual purely corrosion preventive properties would lead to the
following:
• The type and quantity of pozzolanic additives may be optimized regarding concrete
durability and cost. The more the cementitious binder consists of OPC the higher the
pH - raising the chloride corrosion threshold values - and the larger the calcium
hydroxide buffer capacity of the mix to resist carbonation
• The water-cement ratio may be raised to say 0.45. This leads to a reduction in
plasticizers and super-plasticizers needed to ensure dispersion of the pozzolanic
admixtures - if any - and ensuring workability of the concrete. Following from this the
risk of early age cracking (plastic shrinkage cracking and thermal cracking) and
autogenous shrinkage is reduced. Fire resistance may also be enhanced due to the more
porous concrete reducing the risks of explosive spalling.
All in all these possibilities will usually lead to savings in the cost of the concrete.
It shall be recalled, that all additives and admixtures added to concrete to protect against
reinforcement corrosion will for practical reasons realistically have to be mixed into the whole
bulk of the concrete although only needed in the outer concrete cover zone. This represents not
only a considerable waste in materials and an environmentally unfriendly solution, but
introduces also difficulties and added cost in execution.

6.3.3 Crack widths

The crack widths needed to be controlled according to prevailing codes and standards refer to
the visible and measurable crack widths on the concrete surface. The control of cracking on a
concrete structure is determined by the amount, size, strength and distribution of steel
reinforcement, the concrete cover and the concrete strength, together with the level of strain
(stress) in the main reinforcement.
It is today acknowledged within the profession that the at times very strict crack width
limitation imposed on designs in corrosive environments may lead to the consumption of large
quantities of reinforcement, far beyond what is required from an ultimate limit state
calculation. Such large quantities of reinforcement may induce execution difficulties with
NonCor 39

casting and compaction of the concrete, leading to reduced quality of the concrete cover, which
in fact should provide the best quality from a durability point of view.
Where SSR is used an unlimited value of maximum crack can theoretically be tolerated from a
purely corrosion point of view. With SSR visually acceptable cracks widths and tightness -
together with possible effects on deflections and vibrations - will govern the tolerable size of
crack width. A relaxation of the crack width requirements from typically 0.10 - 0.20 mm for
concrete protecting carbon steel reinforcement to 0.30 - 0.40 mm, would be acceptable from a
structural point of view according to several codes.
Where watertight structures are concerned special cases can apply.

6.3.4 Minimum reinforcement

Also with SSR care shall be taken to ensure sufficient reinforcement to ensure a good
distribution of cracks and thus avoid large size single cracks. If the design has adopted
relatively small concrete covers, it facilitates fulfilment of the minimum reinforcement
requirement.

6.3.5 Example of the benefits by replacing carbon steel with SSR

In connection with Sitra Causeway project in Bahrain, which includes marine bridges and
highway interchanges, the detailed design was made adopting SSR in the critically exposed
concrete sections. For comparative reasons the Client requested an overview of the initial cost
savings if the SSR was replaced with normal carbon steel reinforcement. Therefore a re-design
with carbon steel reinforcement was made.
The design basis was BS 5400 /13/, with a design service life of 120 years, of which the first
40 years shall be maintenance free. The design crack widths and required minimum cover were
only moderately modified compared to the suggestions above:
• SSR (1.4462) : maximum crack width: 0.25 mm, minimum cover: 45 mm
• Carbon steel reinforcement: maximum crack width: 0.10 mm, minimum cover: 75 mm.
As the bridges were prestressed longitudinally the amount of longitudinal mild steel
reinforcement was limited, and the increased amount of reinforcement due to the shift from
SSR to carbon steel reinforcement was only a factor of 1.1 - 1.2. However, the transverse
reinforcement should be increased by a factor of 3.0 due to this shift. Using the BS 5400 as
design basis for crack width control also introduced the effect of using only the nominal cover
for designing the crack width, not the required minimum cover. Hence the 75 mm minimum
cover (+10 mm tolerance) was only introduced as 55mm in the cracks width calculation. The
45mm cover was only introduced as 25 mm in the calculations. Without this effect of limiting
crack width design cover to these smaller nominal values, the difference in reinforcement
consumption in the two situations analyzed would have been even greater.
Due to the distribution of the reinforcement in longitudinal and transverse direction and at mid
span zones and over the supports, the overall increased amount of carbon steel reinforcement
compared to stainless steel reinforcement was a factor of 2.05. This detailed analysis
highlighted the main effect of the more relaxed design requirements regarding crack widths
and cover when adopting SSR. The relatively higher cost level for the SSR compared to carbon
steel reinforcement was shown to be halved just by this exercise. At the same time a harmonic
balance between the amounts of reinforcement needed for structural reasons and for durability
- or serviceability - reasons was achieved.
Further savings would be attributed to the reduced dead load due to saved cover, possible
savings in concrete additives and admixtures as particularly dense high performance concrete
to protect the reinforcement is not needed as only the protection of the concrete itself from
40 NonCor

deterioration is needed. The reduced quantity of reinforcement will allow easier casting and
compaction of the concrete. In countries with high unit labour costs the savings in this large
reduction in reinforcement needed to be handled on site would also become a non-negligible
factor of saving.
All in all, the whole concept of solving the reinforcement corrosion problem at the origin of
corrosion, namely through the chosen type of steel reinforcement, introduces a new perspective
in the design and execution of long-term durable structures in highly corrosive environments
and at the same time this approach raises the level considerably of the reliability of the
structural and durability performance of such structures.

6.4 Execution and after-treatment

The selection of a dense concrete to protect the reinforcement against ingress from aggressive
substance will have a number of adverse effects from an execution point of view. Apart from
the increased demand for experience with such concretes when casting and compacting the
concrete, the early age properties and after-treatment with respect to controlling evaporation
and temperature gradients become key durability issues.
The adoption of SSR may in general lead to considerable relaxations in the demand for special
competence in execution. In other words a much more tolerant and robust concrete can be
adapted to the overall benefit of the structural durability and performance.

6.4.1 Plastic shrinkage cracking

The very dense concretes experience no bleeding when cast and the surface has been finished.
This means that any evaporation of water from the freshly cast surface cannot be compensated
by a slight migration of water inside the dense structure of the concrete. Hence, such concretes
are very prone to plastic shrinkage cracking. Due to the denseness of the concrete traditional
sprayed curing membranes are not sufficiently effective to avoid evaporation. The Danish road
authorities allow maximum 6% micro silica in the concrete mix for the same reasons.
Adopting SSR together with the corresponding relaxations in the concrete mix will reduce the
plastic shrinkage problem.

6.4.2 Thermal cracking

The heat generation during hardening of the concrete introduces temperature gradients across
the casting section as well as between a former and a new cast section across a construction
joint.
Adopting dense concrete for corrosion control reasons introduces also a very brittle and
sensitive concrete from a deformation point of view. The autogenous shrinkage and the dense
packing of the concrete particles leaves very little strain capacity in the concrete.
Adopting SSR together with the corresponding relaxations in the concrete mix will reduce the
thermal cracking problem considerably; especially the relaxation in water/cement ratio
requirement and cement content is of importance.

6.5 Transport, storage and handling

Stainless steel reinforcement should in general not be stored in contact with carbon steel
because of the risk of rust staining.
It shall be stressed that such rust staining is only the small carbon steel particles on the surface
of the SSR that corrodes. This results often in the misconception that the SSR is corroding, but
this is not the case. Similarly, leftover microscopic remains of the mill scale from the
NonCor 41

production of the stainless steel might give cause to similar harmless discolouring prone to
misunderstandings. The observation is only of visual - and psychological - importance.
A different situation may occur in the case that SSR is physically forcefully treated with
cutting and bending equipment of ordinary carbon steel. Theoretically small carbon steel
particles may be pressed into the lattice of the stainless steel. If they start to corrode it could be
assumed that this corrosion might develop into the lattice of the stainless steel and cause
further damage such as inter-crystalline corrosion, or maybe pitting corrosion. However, this is
an issue which to the authors’ knowledge never has been reported, but the situation has also
not been investigated through targeted tests.
It seems that further research is needed in order to clarify reality of the theoretical concern of a
possible corrosion risk from carbon particles pressed into the lattice of the different grades of
SSR, see Figure 6-1. This activity is therefore proposed in the Chapter 8 “Further
investigations”.
Apart from that, no additional precautions beyond those for carbon steel reinforcement are
required.

Figure 6-1: Stainless steel bar with iron

contamination (contamination greater than
10 mm in length) due to spray of metal
particles from adjacent black bar cutting
operation.

6.6 Installation, welding and coupling

The self-repairing characteristics of the oxide film on stainless steel mean that the integrity of
the film is maintained, even if the stainless steel reinforcement suffers mechanical damage
during handling.
Stainless steel reinforcement should always be fixed with softened stainless steel tying wires of
the same quality as the structural steel. Spacers made with concrete, or cement mortar should
be used. It is recommended to use stainless steel chairs for support.
SSR should only be cut with equipment designed solely for that purpose. If SSR is cut with a
disc cutter or angle grinder any “blueing” of the steel, i.e. thermal oxides caused by the cutting,
must be removed with a proprietary pickle paste, otherwise the corrosion resistance of the steel
may be impaired.
Welding of stainless steel is possible but not recommended in site conditions, because if the
weld products is not completely removed, corrosion resistance is reduced. Pickling or shot-
blasting the weld can often solve the problem, but is not practical on construction sites. In the
factory or at precasting yards welding is no problem provided the general rules for welding
stainless steel and stainless steel in contact with carbon steel is ensured.
42 NonCor

Stainless steel couplers are available for connecting lengths of bar longitudinally, providing in
most cases a direct alternative to welding. They can be used to connect two lengths of carbon
steel, carbon and stainless, or of stainless steel. The risk of galvanic corrosion is virtually non-
existing under most realistic conditions.

6.7 Use of cover meters

Traditional cover meters cannot detect austenitic stainless steel reinforcement, as they work
using an induction method requiring magnetic reinforcement. Special cover meters have been
developed claiming that measurements can be conducted on non-magnetic reinforcement.
Duplex stainless steel is magnetic but has a poor conductivity. They are detectable by
conventional cover meters but the signal received will be weak. Thus, the measured cover
depth should be checked by visually control of the spacers (number, cover and distribution)
and spot checks by drilling after the reinforcement has been tentatively located, and the
readings calibrated with this measurement.

6.8 Other corrosion preventive measures

6.8.1 Surface treatment of concrete

Surface treatment and coatings of concrete are available in many types and qualities, from
invisible hydrophobic silane impregnations to thick pigmented acrylic, polyurethane or epoxy
based coatings.
The experience with silane impregnations vary from country to country. In some countries
such treatment is compulsory for bridges exposed to de-icing salts. In other countries where the
hydrophobic effect cannot be verified, silanes are not generally used.
Coatings may have durability enhancing effects by slowing down the rate of carbonation or
chloride ingress. However, the verification of the beneficial effects is very difficult in practice.
It has been demonstrated that pinholes in a thick carbonation resistant coating reduces the
protective ability to just fractions of the effect of a pinhole-free coating - and it is not realistic
to make pinhole-free coatings on concrete - even after having applied a surface wash using a
smooth polymer modified cementitious material.
In addition, surface treatment to concrete is exposed to degrading effects from the environment
and from UV light. Hence such coatings shall be maintained or re-applied after a limited
number of years, depending on the type of material and exposure.

6.8.2 Corrosion inhibitors

The newest addition to the concrete mix is the introduction of corrosion inhibitors. They can be
anodic-, cathodic- or mixed inhibitors. The corrosion inhibitor technology is well-known
within the chemical industries. However, adding inhibitors to concrete has resulted in
diverging reports on their efficiency. It also seems that adding too small quantities of nitrate
corrosion inhibitor compared to the future concentration of chlorides may even cause increased
corrosion rates. The most usual inhibitors also act as concrete accelerators, which are not
always an advantage, particularly in hot environments, where high temperatures often cause
casting difficulties due to rapid loss of workability and early hardening.
The risk of the inhibitor being washed out of concrete exposed to splashing water is also an
issue under discussion as the inhibitors seems more mobile than chlorides. The effect of
washing out of inhibitors has not been verified in the laboratory tests, and in situ verifications
after long-term exposure are still missing. In this connection it shall be recalled that inhibitors
NonCor 43

are dormant in the concrete until inhibitor and chlorides are present at the same time at the
surface of the steel reinforcement.
The inhibitor must, for several reasons, be added to all the concrete in the exposed components
although it is only needed in the vicinity of the reinforcement. This has cost implications for
the construction.
With these uncertainties the level of long-term reliability of the inhibitor solution is
questioned.

6.8.3 Cathodic prevention

Cathodic prevention has become an interesting option to protect the parts of structures to be
exposed to high chloride concentrations. In this way a cathodic protection system is installed
already within the new structure ready to be used to protect the reinforcement against chloride
corrosion. This option seems most promising in marine structures as a sacrificial anode system
may be installed simply by placing anodes in the water near or on the structure and link them
up to the reinforcement. Similarly, impressed current systems may be used, but they will
impose on the owner or operator a permanent monitoring of current and of protection level.
The impressed current system can comprise inert anode meshes or bands cast into the concrete
structure, when new or added later, when needed.
However, installing cathodic protection at a later stage will only stop further corrosion; there
will be no restoring of lost steel. Therefore such a solution shall be implemented promptly
when the need has been identified.
The unavoidable life-long monitoring of the installations is also an issue needing careful
consideration. With required design lives in excess of 50 to 100 years the reliability of such a
solution seems to diminish with time.

6.8.4 Non-metallic reinforcement

Fibre reinforcing bars have been developed and it is recognized that corrosion resistance is
achieved with such reinforcing bars. At present such non-metallic bars are based on glass,
aramid or carbon fibres.
However, the different mechanical characteristics between fibre reinforcement and steel
reinforcement, together with the different conditions for practical use on site, seems to indicate
only rather limited or special applications in concrete structures. Fibre reinforcing bars have
very limited strength when loaded transversely to the direction of the fibres. This is an issue for
the connection between main bars and stirrups. Some bars are also very sensitive to hard
impacts. Carbon fibre bars may fracture if hit by a falling hammer or a dropped vibrator.
During casting of concrete the workers cannot walk on the reinforcement, temporary work
bridges must be used.
All such fibre reinforcing bars with very low mass must also be anchored to the form to
prevent floating due to their buoyancy.
Durability aspects have also been questioned for glass fiber reinforcement.
Currently the precast industry seems to present the largest potential use of fibre reinforcing
bars.

6.8.5 Corrosion resistant steel reinforcement

Epoxy coating of reinforcement
U

Epoxy coating of reinforcement was a new protective measure against chloride induced
corrosion introduced in North America in the mid 70´ies. Fusion bonded epoxy coating has
 44 NonCor

since then been used extensively in North America, and later in other countries. However, from
the early 90´ies reports began to emerge indicating that an undercutting chloride induced
corrosion may develop from local pinholes and damages in the coating without necessarily
causing cracking and spalling of concrete cover, just slowly disintegrating the reinforcement.
The first examples were from the bridges on the Florida Keys, At that time the technology was
slowly spreading to Europe, the Middle East, and to some parts of the Far East.
Hence, before the problems with epoxy coated reinforcement became public in North America,
a viable and reliable technology for precasting plants was developed in Europe to eliminate
cutting, bending and patch repairing of coated bars, and at the same time maintaining the
possibility of introducing cathodic protection if corrosion was initiated after all.

Figure 6-2: Illustration of the adverse corrosion protection

performance of epoxy coated reinforcement in the vicinity of
the saline waters of the Arabic or Persian Gulf under hot and
humid environments.

The North American experience with the traditional technology of epoxy coating together with
additional testing and site investigations, among others in Ontario, Canada, has lead to this
technology not gaining foothold in Europe, and the technology is now slowly being phased
out, also in the Middle East and Gulf Countries. Examples from a marine structure in the Gulf
reinforced with epoxy coated reinforcement are illustrated on Figure 6-2.
Hot-dip galvanised reinforcement
U

With respect to hot-dip galvanized reinforcement (HDG) not much practical experience is
available regarding enhanced performance in very aggressive environment. However, it has
been shown in tests that HDG steels may have a higher threshold value for chloride induced
corrosion (initiation) compared to black steel. The protective ability depends on the reactions
at the iron-zinc interface.
An evaluation of the available date and practical experience indicate that galvanizing of well
controlled quality and thickness and applied to appropriate reinforcing steel alloy, will provide:
• Reliable corrosion protection of reinforcing steel in concrete exposed to carbonation
but without chlorides and sulphates
• Slightly increased threshold level for chloride induced corrosion compared to non-
coated steel. However, once corrosion starts the rate of pitting corrosion may be higher,
and at times much higher, than for uncoated black steel. For immersed conditions this
effect may be further aggravated
As stated previously stainless steel reinforcement can be mixed with ordinary black steel
(carbon steel) reinforcement without causing galvanic corrosion. However, zinc coated steel
NonCor 45

reinforcement (galvanised steel, grey galvanizing) cannot be mixed with carbon steel
reinforcement as this will cause galvanic corrosion of the black steel. Therefore, a simple
replacement of Stainless steel reinforcement with galvanized steel reinforcement is not a viable
solution. Realistically all reinforcement should then be galvanized.
Nevertheless any post coating mechanical treatment like cutting and bending will reduce the
reliability of the galvanizing to provide adequate corrosion protection.
Stainless steel cladded black steel reinforcement
U

Recently a hybrid solution has emerged, this being stainless steel cladded carbon steel
reinforcement, "Nuovinox" /44/. The stainless layer provides it with the corrosion resistance
and the inner carbon steel core gives the necessary physical and mechanical properties. The
outer stainless layer can be made from different grades of stainless steel.
The composite nature of the Nuovinox product is clearly seen in the cross-section of the rebar.
The outer stainless steel appears brighter than the carbon steel core. The cladding itself is of
uniform thickness with an average variation between 0.5mm to 1.0mm around the perimeter
and along the length for a 16mm rebar.
Core composition and finishing rolling temperatures can be adjusted to achieve the tensile
properties required. The stress strain curve for Nuovinox is the same as for a carbon steel bar.
Three main drawbacks can be identified:
• The reinforcement can only be produced in short lengths: Usually 6m and by special
order 11.6m.
• The reinforcement cannot be produced in coils, which would have given major
simplifications for the on site automatic production of prescribed lengths and bending
of stirrups and links.
• The cut ends are exposes the carbon steel core and would therefore be exposed to local
chloride ingress. Therefore it is recommended by the producer to provide such bar ends
with a stainless steel cap. The bars shall then be cut by means that does not deform the
ends. Usual scissor type cutting cannot be applied. This could be considered a major
practical drawback of this technology.
• Currently available maximum dimensions are limited to 20mm.

Microcomposite Multistructural Formable Steel (MMFX)

U

Microcomposite Multistructural Formable Steel, MMFX steels, are manufactured without the
use of coating technologies as a result of a patented chemical composition and proprietary steel
microstructure that is formed during the production associated with controlled rolling and
cooling of the steels. This physical feature should minimize the formation of micro galvanic
cells in the steel structure, hence minimizing corrosion initiation /45/.
MMFX steel has low carbon content, less than 0.15%, and contains around 8-10% chrome.
For the MMFX steel reinforcement to be acceptable to the concrete community, a number of
design and detailing characteristics must be determined. The mechanical characteristics of the
reinforcement by themselves, and in conjunction with concrete must be independently
validated.
46 NonCor
NonCor 47

7 Applications for stainless steel reinforcement

7.1 Selective application of stainless steel reinforcement
Stainless steel reinforcement has been used in a wide range of applications, such as bridges,
tunnels and underpasses, retaining walls, foundations, marine structures, historic buildings and
other structures with special long service lives in the last 30 years /5/ and /18/.
The most cost optimal solution is to use SSR in the most exposed zones/parts of the structure.
For bridges it could be in edge beams, expansion joint sections, piers and piers tops and bridge
deck soffits. Typical potential application of SSR in marine and offshore structures includes
piers and soffits of jetties, part of oil rigs in the tidal or splash zones, exposed face of building
close to the shoreline, seawalls etc.
The selective use approach is illustrated in Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2, showing a large
building complex in the Gulf region. SSR (1.4462) was here introduced from somewhat below
groundwater level to level +5m in the outermost structures directly exposed to the salty ground
water and seawater spray of the Gulf. All remaining parts are reinforced with normal carbon
steel. At the same time the reinforced concrete seawall protecting the new building complex is
being replaced using SSR (1.4462) throughout.

Figure 7-1: A large building complex under Figure 7-2: New precast concrete seawall elements
construction in the Gulf directly facing the sea to replace an existing seawall adopting SSR
(1.4462)

Figure 7-3: Stonecutters Bridge, Hong Kong. Figure 7-4: Sheik Zayed Bridge, Abu Dhabi.
Pylons reinforced with SSR (1.4462) in the Lower part of supports are of reinforced concrete
outer layer of the multi-layer of reinforcement with SSR (1.4462) in the outer layer of
reinforcement
48 NonCor

Recently a number of very large and prestigious bridges in highly corrosive marine
environments have adopted SSR in the outermost horizontal and vertical reinforcement layer
of the most exposed parts of the structures. These are the Stonecutters Bridge, Figure 7-3, and
the Shenzhen Corridor in Hong Kong or the Sheik Zayed Bridge in Abu Dhabi, Figure 7-4. All
these bridges are currently under construction. The remaining layers of the multi-layer of
reinforcement are ordinary carbon steel reinforcement, but now with a larger concrete cover
and with effective crack width control due to the outer SSR layer.
An intermediate possibility could also be to use SSR only as the stirrups in more moderate
cases of exposure.

7.2 Repair works

Stainless steel reinforcement is now being introduced into more repair projects. As stainless
steel is a much poorer cathode than carbon steel, SSR can be beneficial in those repair cases
where ordinary carbon steel has corroded to such an extent that local replacement or added
reinforcement is needed as part of a repair.
A growing application area for SSR is
repair and renovation of historical
buildings where very long design lives
are required.
Welded mesh reinforcement of stainless
steel are being used extensively, both for
new constructions like parking decks etc,
but also in connection with repairs of
reinforced concrete. In the latter case
such fine mesh is used extensively to
control cracking where cover is low in
the repaired zones.
A typical example is the replacement of
parts of the seawall in Sydney Harbour Figure 7-5: Reconstruction of the seawall in
following extensive reinforcement Sydney Harbour using SSR (1.4462) following
corrosion of the reinforcement. The extensive corrosion damage of the reinforcement.
structural safety was below acceptable
level and the structure became visually
unpleasant. Stainless steel reinforcement is introduced to avoid future repairs, see Figure 7-5.

7.2.1 Replacement of central crash barrier

In 2005 and 2006 the existing 5.7 km of concrete crash barrier on the Free Way between
Copenhagen and Lyngby was replaced. The existing crash barrier consist of two parallel rows
of concrete elements - New Jersey type, each with a length of 4m, join with a concrete bottom
slab in between the rows of concrete elements, and closed with concrete top slab elements.
The existing barrier was 35 years of age and has extensive reinforcement corrosion and
damage to the concrete cover, due to chloride ingress, frost and delaminating of the concrete.
Based on aesthetic and safety considerations the new crash barrier was designed with similar
geometry and colour as the existing old barrier.
The new concrete crash barrier was designed according to the standards EN 1317 /46/, DS
2426 /47/ and EN 206 /8/, and the use of white concrete was required.
NonCor 49

Due to the severe aggressive environment in which the crash barrier is situated, the concrete
must fulfil the requirements for an extra aggressive environmental class in compliance with DS
2426, hence the concrete specifications and concrete cover was defined. Further more surface
cracks are not accepted due to aesthetic reasons.
In this case a cost/benefit analysis was made considering the following aspects:
• aesthetic
• durability
• limited experience with durability for white concrete in severe aggressive environment
• additional cost for stainless steel (AISI 316-quality) compared with black steel
• local reduction in the concrete cover due to geometry of concrete elements
Based on this analysis stainless steel reinforcement was deemed preferable.

7.2.2 Replacement of concrete edge beams on bridges

Due to the extensive damages to concrete edge beams on Danish high way bridges a great
number has been replaced during the last 5 years.
The aggressive environment has coursed
large damage such as cracking,
reinforcement corrosion and spalling of the
edge beams.
Based on the damages seen on the existing
edge beams, replacement is designed
according to the requirement for extra
aggressive environment according to DS
2426 /47/.
However, experience with in situ casting
with high performance concrete on the
existing concrete structures, have shown
difficulties in avoidance of cracks in the new
concrete. Such cracks, which are caused Figure 7-6: Replacing edge beams and parapets
both by temperature and short and long term on bridges in Denmark exposed to de-icing salt.
shrinkage conditions, may thus leave the
reinforcement exposed to water and
chlorides from de-icing salt.
With the relative small amount of steel needed in these projects the additional cost for using
stainless steel is acceptable as shown in Chapter 7.3.

7.3 Life cycle costing

Life cycle costing (LCC) is a technique developed for identifying and quantifying all costs
(initial and running) associated with a project over a given period of time. LCC uses the
standard accountancy principle of discounted cash flow, so that all costs incurred during a life
cycle period are reduced to present day value.
The life cycle costing is, for instance, by the Danish Road Directorate handled in connection
with special investigations in a systematic and rational manner. The methodology can be used
also where selection of durability strategy for structures to be built are concerned. A time span
of 50 years is looked upon, but can in principle be extended to cover any required period of
50 NonCor

time. In a spread sheet different strategies A, B and maybe a third strategy C is selected. In
relation to strategy for a new structure this can be:
A: Construction using stainless steel and carbon steel reinforcement, selective as
appropriate
B: Carbon steel reinforcement with high performance concrete and relatively high
concrete cover.
In the spread sheet all costs during the anticipated service life are inserted, the construction
costs in year zero, and inspection, operation and maintenance costs in the years to come. In
case an expected repair before onset of corrosion is expected after 50 years of operation for
strategy B, the price for repairs are inserted corresponding to year 50.
The costs are converted to present value costs using the real rate of interest. The real rate of
interest used by the Danish Road Directorate is set at 7 %.
Together with an evaluation of the actual costs (total and present value) also indirect costs are
included in the calculations. The indirect costs include traffic hazards, where the disturbance
made to the Traficant's is priced in relation to the time of disturbance.
This means that a life cycle planned with two or more repairs during the service life in traffic
heavy areas will have considerate indirect costs included before the present cost value is
calculated, and could result in a conclusion that strategies including repair during the service
life is not cost optimum. Correspondingly, marine structures will often not have indirect costs
during repairs (except for water tanks on the roadway used for water jetting) and construction
and repair strategies where stainless steel and/or preventive repair strategies are considered will
often turn out to be the optimum solution.
The methodology etc. is described in more detail in /48/ . It should be noted that the real rate of
interest has a significant influence on the calculated optimum strategy.
In the following an example is given where the life cycle costs of replacement of approx. 100
meter edge beams have been calculated using stainless steel and carbon steel, respectively (see
7.2.2). The calculation is based on an estimated service life of 50 years for both types of
reinforcement. Maintenance costs for carbon steel are further estimated at an extra 200.000
DKK every 5th year during the last 30 years of the service life. The indirect costs are
secondary costs caused by the estimated traffic disturbances.
The calculations are based on the Danish Road Directorate's present value program /48/.
Figure 7-7 shows the net present value as function of various real rate of interest a result of the
calculations (A0 : Stainless steel reinforcement and B0 : Carbon steel reinforcement).
In Table 7-1 the key figures are summarized for the total costs and the costs of a present value
calculation using a real rate of 7 %. As seen the use of stainless steel is the most financially
advantageous solution both with respect to total costs as well as present value calculation.

Table 7-1: Costs in mill. DKK

Strategy A Strategy B
Stainless Steel Carbon Steel
Total costs 7,0 8,6
Present value, real rate 7 % 3,6 3,8
NonCor 51

6.000

Net present value [DKK1.000]

5.000

4.000
A0
3.000
B0
2.000

1.000

0
0 2 4 6 8
Real rate of interest [% p.a.]

Figure 7-7: Net present value as function of real rate of interest

52 NonCor
NonCor 53

8 Further investigations
There remains a number of investigations and test that would be convenient to have made
when discussing the rapidly growing adoption of the nearly foolproof solution of stainless steel
reinforcement to the worldwide problems of corrosion of carbon steel reinforcement.
Among such tests are:
• Objective determination of the chloride threshold values for the different grades of
SSR as a supplement to the relative level of corrosion resistance represented by the
PREN values developed for a different situation. Of particular interest will be methods
clarifying the uncertainties related to the more cost effective types SSR like the low
grades of stainless steel and the new types SSR like the lean duplex types. Currently it
is a general impression that some "overshooting" governs the selection of grades, to be
on the safe side so not to destroy this very promising solution to a serious problem.
• Testing to clarify reality of the theoretical concern of a possible corrosion risk from
carbon particles pressed into the lattice of the different grades of SSR.
• Testing to clarify the influence of coupling between corroding carbon steel and
stainless steel when the unexpected corrosion behaviour occur (case when low alloyed
stainless steel used as skin reinforcement maybe forced to corrode by high amount of
chlorides penetrating concrete and which is electrically connected to the passive carbon
steel located behind).
• Testing influence of welding on the coupling between carbon steel and stainless steel.
It should be expected that welding will reduce the corrosion resistance by reducing the
chloride threshold levels, which is due to the combined effect of oxide and insufficient
compaction of concrete around the weld. For this reason a post cleaning process should
form a part of welding procedure qualification. This procedure should also include the
accelerated testing to demonstrate the influence of cleaning process on the corrosion
resistance properties.
• Comparative study of corrosion properties of different types of stainless steel
reinforcement and cladded steel by determination of chloride threshold values under
accelerated exposure conditions.
54 NonCor
NonCor 55

9 Summary and conclusions

In recent years there has been an increasing interest in applying stainless steel reinforcement
(SSR) in concrete structures to combat the durability problems associated with chloride
ingress.
A convincing documentation of the performance of stainless steel reinforcement in highly
chloride contaminated concrete is presented by the 70 year old concrete pier at Progresso in
Mexico. This pier was reinforced with stainless steel reinforcing bars (quality 1.4301) and no
corrosion has taken place within the structure yet despite the harsh environment. The chloride
levels, at the surface of the reinforcement are more than 20 times the traditionally assumed
corrosion threshold level for carbon steel.
It may be concluded that designing structures with SSR may in principle be performed by a
simple replacement of ordinary carbon steel reinforcement with SSR in the ratio 1:1 as the
structural properties are the same regarding strength and ductility (or better for several of the
available types of SSR). Further, using SSR in design other advantages should also be utilized,
such as: relaxation of concrete cover requirements, crack width requirement, and maybe
concrete quality (permeability) requirements.
An important fact is that stainless steel reinforcement can be combined with black steel cast
into concrete without risks of galvanic corrosion due to bi-metal - or galvanic - action. In fact,
this is the precondition for general economical application of stainless steel reinforcement used
only in the parts of the structure where this protection is needed, - so-called selective use.
Ribbed stainless steel reinforcement is available in a number of different material grades.
Choice of material grade should depend on the design service life and the environmental
aggressivity.
A more operational classification system is proposed in this guide introducing corrosion
resistance classes (Class 0-3). For concrete structures located in marine environment with
moderate temperature and relative humidity and with a design service life below 100 years,
Class 1 SSR should be used to gain a reliable solution. For long design service life (200 - 300
years) or for concrete structures exposed to high chloride concentrations (e.g. de-icing salt) or
for concrete structures exposed to high temperature and relative humidity, Class 2 SSR should
be adapted. For concrete structures exposed to a combination of above criteria (e.g. long
service life combined with high temperature and relative humidity) use of Class 3 SSR should
be evaluated.
The main conclusion of this guide is that if SSR is to be used cost effectively, it is essential
that the design and specification of reinforcement minimizes the impact of the initial cost
increase resulting from the use of stainless steel. This can be achieved in a number of ways:
• by adapting life cycle costing (LCC) as an integral part of the service life design
process
• by correct selection and specification of stainless steel material grade
• by changing the design approach for durability requirements developed for carbon steel
by a new approach adapted that reinforcement corrosion is solved through the use of
SSR
• by using stainless steel selectively only on structures or elements or at surfaces of
structures that are at risk of degradation from chloride induced corrosion
• by using higher strength steels, as available with the SSR, to reduce the overall
quantity of reinforcement - when structurally and performance based acceptable
56 NonCor

The adoption of SSR in concrete structures is the first clear indication that changes in the steel
formulations is needed. The competitiveness of the relatively expensive SSR has led to the
development of the different types of reinforcements mentioned in this Guide. "Lean Duplex"
is one such promising renewal within the corrosion resistant types of reinforcement. One
concern has been that in several instances the traditional types of SSR will in some situations
be considered "overkill" for concrete structures. It is assumed that this development is just in
its infancy, and a keen eye should be kept on this development in the years to come.
NonCor 57

10 References
/1/ “Pier in Progreso, Mexico”, Inspection report, Evaluation of the stainless steel
T

reinforcement, ARMINOX, 1999

T

/2/ Tuutti, K., “Corrosion of steel in concrete”, CBI research, vol. 4, Cement- och
betonginstitutet, 1982
/3/ "Model code for service life design", fib, Bulletin No. 34, February 2006
/4/ “General guidelines for durability design and redesign”, The European Union- Brite
EuRam III, project No. BE95-1347, Probabilistic performance based Durability Design
of Concrete Structures, report NO. T7-01-1, 1999
/5/ “Stainless steel reinforcement in concrete. The use of stainless steel reinforcement in
bridges”, British Steel Association, April 2002
/6/ Rostam, S., “Philosophy of Assessment and Repair of Concrete Structures, and the
Feedback into New Designs”, Regional Conference on Damage Assessment, Repair
Techniques and Strategies for Reinforced Concrete, Bahrain, December, 1991
/7/ EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2, Part 1-1 ”Design of structures. General rules and rules for
buildings”
/8/ EN 206-1 “Concrete–Part 1: Specification performance, production and conformity”
/9/ SS 137010 “Concrete structures – Concrete cover”
/10/ NS 3473 “Concrete structures - Design and detailing rules”
/11/ DS 411 “Code of practice for the Structural use of Concrete”
/12/ BRO 2004 “Swedish Bridge Design Code”
/13/ BS 5400 Part 4 “Code of practice for design of concrete bridges”
/14/ BS 6744 “Stainless steel bars for the reinforcement of and us in concrete –
requirements ad test methods”
/15/ Outokumpu, webpage: http://www.outokumpu.com/ Products information
/16/ Haynes, J. M., “Stainless Steel Reinforcement”, Civil Engineering, 1984
/17/ Kilworth, S. R., Fallon, J., “Stainless Steels for Reinforcement”, development of the
paper ”Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coated Reinforcement in the Gulf”, presented at the
Corrosion and Protection of Reinforced Concrete Conference, Dubai, 1994
/18/ "Guidance on the use of stainless steel reinforcement", Concrete Society Technical
Report 51, Concrete Society, 1998
/19/ “Stainless Steel in Concrete”, European Federation of Corrosion Publications, Number
18, The Institute of Materials, 1996
/20/ “Use of Stainless Steel Reinforcement in Highway Structures”, BA 84/02, Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges, The Highways Agency, 2002
/21/ “Comparison of the corrosion resistance of some new metallic reinforcing bars in
concrete blocks exposed to chloride ions”, Virginia Transportation Research Council
and Federal Highway Administration Report, October 2003
/22/ "Specification Sheet: 2304 (UNS S32304) A Duplex Stainless Steel with PREN 24",
Sandmeyer Steel Company
/23/ BS 970 “General inspection and testing procedures and specific requirements”
58 NonCor

/24/ BS EN 10088-1:2005 “Stainless steels. List of stainless steels”

/25/ BS 8666 “Specification for Scheduling, dimensioning, bending and cutting of steel
reinforcement for concrete”
/26/ Markeset, G., Rostam, S. and Skovsgaard, T.; “Stainless Steel Reinforcement - An
Owners, a Designers and a Producers Viewpoint”, Proceedings, 6th International
P P

Conference on "Deterioration and Repair of Reinforced Concrete In the Arabian Gulf",

Bahrain, November, 2000, 18 pp
/27/ Nelson, F.J., “Stainless Steel for Bridges”, Report from Bridge Section of Oregon
Department of Transportation
/28/ Hunkeler, F., "Einsatz von nichtrostenden Bewehrungsstählen im Betonbau" (Use of
non-corroding Reinforcing Steels in Concrete Construction), Eidgenössisches
Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation / Bundesamt für
Strassen, Switzerland, May 2000
/29/ Sørensen, B., Jensen, P.B. and Maahn, E., “The Corrosion Properties of Stainless Steel
Reinforcement”, Corrosion of reinforcement in concrete, (eds. Page, Treadaway,
Bamforth), Elsevier Applied Science, 1990
/30/ Treadaway, K.W.J., Cox, R.N. and Brown, B.L., “Durability of Corrosion Resisting
Steels in Concrete”, Proc. Inst. Civ. Engineers, Part 1, 1989
/31/ Flint, G.N. and Cox, R.N., “The Resistance of Stainless Steel Partly Embedded in
Concrete to Corrosion by Seawater”, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 40, No.142,
1988
/32/ Cox. R.N. and Oldfield, J.W., “The long term performance of austenitic stainless steel
in chloride contained concrete”. Corrosion of reinforcement in concrete construction,
(eds: Page, Bamforth and Figg), Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge 1996
/33/ Pedeferri, P., “Stainless steel in concrete”, Corrosion of steel in reinforced concrete
structures, Proceedings of COSTS21 workshop, Paris 20-21 April, 1998
/34/ Bertolini, L., Pedeferri, P. and Pastore, T., "Stainless Steel in Reinforced Concrete
Structures", Proceedings of the Second International Conference on “Concrete under
T

Severe Conditions”, Vol. 1, Tromsø, Norway, June 21-24, 1998 (published by E&FN
T

Spon)
/35/ Pastore, T., Pedeferri, P., Bertolini, L. and Bolzoni, F., “Electrochemical Study on the
Use of the Duplex Stainless Steel in Concrete”, Duplex Stainless Steels 91, 1991,
Beaune Borgogne, France
/36/ Pedeferri et al., “Behaviour of stainless steel in simulated concrete”. Repair and
rehabilitation of reinforced structures- state of the art report, American Society of Civil
Engineering, 1998
/37/ Rasheeduzzafar, Dhakil, Bader and Khan: “Performance of Corrosion Resisting Steels
in Chloride-bearing Concrete”, ACI Materials Journal, 1992
/38/ “Corrosion of Steel in Concrete”, COST Action 521: Final Report, EUR 20599, 2003
/39/ Klinghoffer, O., “Stainless Steel Reinforcement”, NORECON - A Nordic Network,
“Repair and Maintenance of Concrete Structures” Report of Task 2 – Repair Methods,
April 2004
/40/ “Materials for Corrosion Cell Cathodes”, Internal Report by The Danish Corrosion
Centre as a part of report regarding BRITE Contract 102 D, 1990
NonCor 59

/41/ Klinghoffer, O., Frølund, T., Kofoed, B., Knudsen, A., Jensen, F.M. and Skovsgaard T.,
“Practcal Aspects of Application of Austenitic Stainless Steel, AISI 316, as
Reinforcement in Concrete”, Publication No. 31 of European Federation of Corrosion,
Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete, Corrosion Mechanisms and Corrosion
Protection, Papers from EUROCORR ´99, 1999, pp. 121-134
/42/ Jäggi, S., Elsener, B. and Böhni, H., “Oxygen reduction on passive steel in alkaline
solutions”, Book of Abstracts, EUROCORR ’99, 1999
/43/ Nürnberger, U., Beul, W. and Onuseit, G., “Corrosion Behaviour of Welded Stainless
Reinforced Steel in Concrete”, Otto-Graf-Journal, 1993
/44/ “Stainless Steel Clad Reinforcing Bar with Carbon Steel Core”, Stelax, Technical
Bulletin, September, 2004
/45/ “High corrosion resistance MMFX Microcomposite reinforcement steels”, Report of
Concrete Innovations Appraisal Service (CIAS), May, 2003
/46/ EN 1317 “Road restraint systems”
/47/ DS 2426 “Danish national application to EN 206 -1”
/48/ "Broforvaltning med DANBRO 2.0, 5. Særeftersyn", Ed. ”Vejdirektoratet” (in Danish)